Returned from hiatus; getting up to speed on 5e rules lawyering.
"What is the sort of thing that I do care about is a failure to seriously evaluate what does and doesn't work in favor of a sort of cargo cult posturing. And yes, it's painful to read design notes columns that are all just "So D&D 3.5 sort of had these problems. We know people have some issues with them. What a puzzler! But we think we have a solution in the form of X", where X is sort of a half-baked version of an idea that 4e executed perfectly well and which worked fine." - Lesp
Current LFR Characters
Rygel, Svirfneblin Warlord|Sentinel 16--Kelith, Revenant Fighter 16 --Samel, Human Thief 13 --Aden Kadril, Elf Paladin 13 --Traya Moonraven, Revenant Hybrid 13 --Chais Domarien, Tiefling Psion 12 --Shiny Scales, Dragonborn Warlord 8 --Krush, Human Warlock 6 --Maxwell Edison, Human Rogue 4
LFR: Embrace the travelling carnival of exotic murder hobos. - Bargle0
I don't think it is 'sensible' to say that sleeping in full plate 'isn't really all that uncomfortable'. If it wasn't that bad, why didn't people do it in real life? They didn't.
I don't think it is 'sensible' to say that sleeping in full plate 'isn't really all that uncomfortable'. If it wasn't that bad, why didn't people do it in real life? They didn't.Can you prove they didn't? Have you ever tried to sleep in a set of custom made full plate?I'm guessing why they usually didn't would be:* They're inside a castle, so they're safe* It makes people wonder if their liege is paranoid or if they're really in danger* It tires you out to walk around with it all day* It makes you stink like hell* It gives visitors the wrong kind of impressions if you great them in armorBut I'm betting in a war, if they gave you the choice between sleeping in your armor or sleeping defenseless when a night-raid was expected, people would be sleeping in armor. Less sleep > being attacked and without armor in the middle of the night.
You may now attempt to explain what realism has to do with D&D.
You may now attempt to explain what realism has to do with D&D.It's a matter of taste.
I apologize if some of my posts came off as a bit cranky, but I like realism in my game, and for that we have to look to history. You can dismiss realism if you like, and if that makes your game more enjoyable, all power to you. But if you're trying to make your game as realistic as a fantasy game can be, then sleeping in armor should tire out your characters more quickly than not sleeping in armor.So do whatever you want; all I am saying is that in real life, sleeping in armor is uncomfortable. I don't think that this is really a very unreasonable statement.
The reason I hate this argument is that why must realism apply negatively against specific characters?
The reason I hate this argument is that why must realism apply negatively against specific characters?Because physics isn't fair, and doesn't care about game balance.
The reason I hate this argument is that why must realism apply negatively against specific characters?Why must everything be something assumed as going against the players? Maybe it is more attractive to the story you are trying to tell and the players are trying to partake in. How heroic is it that they party is ambushed and the paladin saved the day because he sleeps in his armor? But a non-armored paladin saving the day from an ambush... now THAT is heroic!Just balance the encounter properly, and the armorless paladin is a non-issue, and the story is more glorified without the players none-the-wiser.
Yes, I can prove they didn't.
Can you provide counter-examples of armies actually sleeping in full plate?
The historical evidence shows without a doubt that armies slept without armor even when in enemy territory and expecting an enemy attack.
If you have to resort to making offensive comments instead of making logical arguments, you deserve to be ignored.
All you proved is that in a few cases, they didn't sleep in their armour, not that they couldn't have had they felt it necessary. Why do you think that was?
Indeed I can. Here follow two such accounts:Bernal Diaz del Castillo writes in his Conquest of New Spain, that during the campaign against the Tlaxcalans, that "we were accustomed to sleep in our armour," and that this practice helped greatly in repelling a nighttime attack. Jehan, lord of Haynin, participated in Charles the Bold's campaign against the town of Ghent, which was in revolt in October of 1476. In his Memoirs, he records an incident during which most of his heavy cavalry column remained in armour all night for fear of night attack.
What the historical evidence shows, QED, is that armies in fact, did not always take off their armour when in enemy territory and expecting attack. They wore their armour all night when circumstance obliged them to do so.
My harness weighs 72 pounds, including the arming doublet with mail attachments, and the clothing worn underneath. While I haven't slept an entire night in it, I have, on several occasions, taken naps in it, lasting a couple of hours or more. It's not anywhere near as bad as you seem to believe it is. I think I could sleep all night in it and arise the next morning none the worse for wear. Would I like to have to do so for several nights in a row? No, but I think I could without any serious reduction in my physical abilities.Since I am also a surgical nurse by trade, I submit also for your consideration that I have witnessed many instances of patients resting comfortably all night long while in various types of traction, casts, etc.
As a former professional athlete, if I slept on my pillow wrong or at on an inferior hotel mattress, I could be out of whack for a day or sometimes a week
Since we're whipping out our codpieces... :DAs a former professional athlete, if I slept on my pillow wrong or at on an inferior hotel mattress, I could be out of whack for a day or sometimes a week. I mean, I could perform, but not nearly at the capacity of which I was trained for. This could even lead to other injuries as my body would have to compensate for that gimpiness.Based on that, I can guarantee you that while I could likely fall asleep in that suit of armor, there is no way in hell that I would be worth a damn when I woke up, particularly startled awake without any ability to stretch my muscles beforehand.Sure, I could walk and do basic functions, but perform at my highest level? Not a chance.
As a former professional athlete, if I slept on my pillow wrong or at on an inferior hotel mattress, I could be out of whack for a day or sometimes a weekThis is why the PC's in my campaign now never travel without their own pillow. Sure, it's a house-rule, but the week-long penalty definitely enforces correct roleplaying on the part of the player. One PC even braved several volleys of arrow fire simply to retrieve his pillow. Luckily, he was ok again after a short rest.
I don't think it is 'sensible' to say that sleeping in full plate 'isn't really all that uncomfortable'. If it wasn't that bad, why didn't people do it in real life? They didn't.Can you prove they didn't? Have you ever tried to sleep in a set of custom made full plate?I'm guessing why they usually didn't would be:* They're inside a castle, so they're safe* It makes people wonder if their liege is paranoid or if they're really in danger* It tires you out to walk around with it all day* It makes you stink like hell* It gives visitors the wrong kind of impressions if you great them in armorBut I'm betting in a war, if they gave you the choice between sleeping in your armor or sleeping defenseless when a night-raid was expected, people would be sleeping in armor. Less sleep > being attacked and without armor in the middle of the night.Yes, I can prove they didn't. At the Battle of Toulouse in 721, Odo of Aquitaine caught the Muslim forces without their armor and routed them; why wouldn't they be in their armor, when they were in enemy territory and actually besieging the city of Toulouse at the time? At the Battle of Sorbara in 1084, even the enemy commander, Gandulf of Reggio, was unable to put on his armor due to the fact that the camp was attacked by surprise at dawn. There are many, many more examples of this sort of thing. At the siege of Jerusalem in 70 AD, Roman historians tell us the Romans and the defenders passed the night in their armor and were therefore unable to sleep. Why didn't the Romans sleep in armor? The Romans were meticulous about entrenching in order to be able to fight off surprise attacks; in fact they constructed an entire camp, replete with ditches and gates, every night before they went to sleep. Yet even they did not sleep in armor. Why didn't the Vikings bring their armor to the Battle of Stamford Bridge? Because it is encumbering and you can't really sleep in it. Why were Templars ordered to sleep in their clothes rather than their armor? Their very reason for their existence was to fight, and being monks they were perfectly suited to undergoing ordeals (such as wearing hair shirts) as symbolic renunciations of worldly pleasures... but even they did not sleep in armor. Etc., etc. Can you provide counter-examples of armies actually sleeping in full plate? I mean real armies doing it, after marching all day long and preparing to fight the next day... not people getting half-hour naps between SCA events. All this talk about real soldiers not sleeping in their armor because 'they're inside a castle, so they're safe' and it giving people the 'wrong kind of impressions' is a red herring. There were many reasons why it would be advisable to sleep in armor if it were at all possible. There are countless historical examples of armies being caught sleeping and therefore unarmored, and ancient and medieval commanders had certainly read these stories too, so they were well aware of the dangers of sleeping unarmoured. You don't think they would have ordered their men to sleep in their armor in enemy territory if it was feasible? Were they really that dumb? No. They didn't sleep in their armor because it is so uncomfortable as to inhibit sleep. This is why the Persians at Arbela/Gaugemala were tired when they had to fight the next day after staying up all night in their armor: because they couldn't sleep. And yes, I have read through the other threads. Being able to take a half-hour nap in plastic plate armor between SCA events is not the same as sleeping in heavy steel plate armor night after night in preparation for battle. Yes, you can move around quite well even in full plate; you don't need help to get up from a prone position (that is a myth), and you can even do cartwheels in it. But if you try to sleep in it night after night, you will get quite tired quite quickly. Every DM is of course free to do whatever he or she wants, and the RAW certainly don't envisage any penalty for sleeping in armor. All I am saying is that the argument from realism doesn't support the idea that you can sleep in armor as well as you can sleep without it. The historical evidence shows without a doubt that armies slept without armor even when in enemy territory and expecting an enemy attack. That fact really is quite unavoidable.
So you are suggesting that the Conquistadores were wearing full plate? That seems to differ from contemporary depictions of them, which show them wearing at most a breastplate, not a full suit of armor.
Ancient and medieval soldiers, who wore their armor every day and whose lives depended on it, nevertheless took it off to sleep even when in enemy territory and expecting an attack. Why do you think that is? I suspect that it was because they realized they couldn't really sleep very well in their armor... what do you think? What would your explanation be for this historical fact, which seems to recurr across virtually all cultures and time periods in which heavy metal armor was worn?
The English slept in their armour the night before the battle of Falkirk in 1298 and were sufficiently rested to be victorious against the Scots the next day. Froissart also mentions the English sleeping in their armour on other campaigns against the Scots in the 14th century. Interestingly, the English also are said to have slept in their armour after their victory against the French at Crecy in 1346.
At the Siege of Rhodes in 1480, mentioned is made of the knights of the Italian langue who were holding the fortress of St. Nicholas against the Turkish onslaught sleeping in their armour and still being well-rested enough to repel Turkish assaults, ultimately overcoming the Turks. Another source mentions that the knights also slept in their armour at the earlier siege of Rhodes in 1444.
Since we are dealing with small parties of armed people in D&D 4th edition and not armies, I expanded my cursory search through my source material to include mention of individuals sleeping in armour. Cromwell is known to have done so (and on a table, not a bed!) at Stonyhurst Hall in 1648 since he feared being murdered in his sleep. And since we're looking at all cultures and not just Europe, I found a reference to two Chinese generals, Jiang Bin and Wang Han, sleeping in full armour during the invasion of Wei in AD 258. On the other hand, the practice of sleeping in armour seems to have disagreed with Joan of Arc, yet is is noted that she did it as need dictated.
I am confident that I can produce more references to the practice if needs be.
I'm not arguing that sleeping in armour was by any means a standard practice in preindustrial warfare, but clearly, it was done on occasion if the situation warranted it, and it does not seem to have affected the prowess of the warriors and soldiers who did so.
I also want to make it clear that not even I am calling for there to be absolutely no penalty for doing this in D&D 4E; sleeping in armour wasn't as bad as Hurin makes it out to be, but it still isn't as good as sleeping unarmed in a feather bed. If verisimilitude is called for, I propose that sleeping or taking an extended rest in armour be permitted without suffering any penalty for one or two nights or so. After that, continuing to sleep in full armour should cause the character to incur the loss of one healing surge for that day, until such time as s/he is able to take an extended rest without armour. I think anything worse than that is both unfair and unrealistic, given the historical evidence.
Just make it a feat and be done with it. Then it's up to the character if he wants to suffer no penalties or not.
Just make it a feat and be done with it. Then it's up to the character if he wants to suffer no penalties or not.So he's instead penalized by having to spend a valuable feat slot?
Just make it a feat and be done with it. Then it's up to the character if he wants to suffer no penalties or not.So he's instead penalized by having to spend a valuable feat slot?If it's already a house rule to require not sleeping in armor, and you view it as a penalty, sure. The player may see it as a bonus and it may be worth it for him to take it. It's all perception.Another option is that they make an endurance skill check if they choose to sleep in their armor. Success, they have a normal night's sleep. The DC could be increased if they sleep in their armor multiple nights in a row. Failure results in some type of penalty in their first encounter if they are ambushed while sleeping.
If you never attack PC's in their sleep the rule serves no purpose because they can safely sleep without their armor and not worry about a penalty.