Sleeping in armor

65 posts / 0 new
Last post
I can not seem to find anything in the books on this subject. 

Any help would be fantastic.
You can sleep in armor.  There's no rule against it.
RAW, you can sleep in Plate Mail if that makes you happy.

It's basically to prevent the Paladin from being SOL if the PCs are ever attacked at night. 
Epic Dungeon Master

Want to give your players a kingdom of their own? I made a 4e rule system to make it happen!

Your Kingdom awaits!
Update 5th Sep 2011: Added a sample kingdom, as well as sample of play.
Basically, to summarise everything sensible that anybody has ever said on this topic:
  • Sleeping in your armour, even full plate, isn't really all that uncomfortable. At least, not compared to sleeping on a thin bedroll on a cave floor or out in the wilderness somewhere. It's certainly not sufficiently uncomfortable to make you get less than the usual benefit from your extended rest, or to require an Endurance check or anything like that.

  • Having penalties for sleeping in armour penalises some classes (e.g. paladins) much, much more than others (e.g. wizards). It should therefore be avoided by DMs that care about fairness.

  • Keeping your armour on to sleep when you have reason to believe you might get attacked (e.g. you're having a rest halfway through a dungeon) makes a lot of sense.

  • Sleeping in your armour at the inn, or in the temple of Bahamut, or in any other place where you have absolutely no reason to assume you might be in danger, is pretty blatant metagaming.

"There's an old saying that all it takes for evil to triumph is that good people do nothing. I've always had a problem with that. If you do nothing to oppose evil, then how are you 'good'? To turn aside and allow evil to flourish is to collaborate with it. You ask for mercy. You claim you have done nothing. That 'nothing' is why you deserve no mercy." - Lorian Karthfaerr, drow paladin of Avandra Robin Laws says I'm a Storyteller:
Show
You're more inclined toward the role playing side of the equation and less interested in numbers or experience points. You're quick to compromise if you can help move the story forward, and get bored when the game slows down for a long planning session. You want to play out a story that moves like it's orchestrated by a skilled novelist or film director. Storyteller 92% Tactician 83% Method Actor 75% Butt-Kicker 67% Power Gamer 67% Specialist 58% Casual Gamer 8%
While I agree with most of the points made above, 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. If you've ever worn lorica segmentata or any other type of historical armor, you will notice that the weight, chafing, restriction of movement and general discomfort greatly inhibit sleep.

Now, of course, you are free to allow sleeping in armor for balance reasons, since not allowing it really does penalize some characters much more than others, but the historical/realism argument clearly favours disallowing it.

My house rule is that players who want to sleep in armor can make an Endurance check with a dc of 22. If they succeed, they are fine; if they fail, they give up two healing surges.

"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

The summoned armor enhancement is a good way to deal with DM's that like to penalize you for sleeping in your armor and regularly attack you while sleeping. Assuming the DM allows anything in his game that prevents him from attacking defenseless PCs....
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 armor

But 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.
Epic Dungeon Master

Want to give your players a kingdom of their own? I made a 4e rule system to make it happen!

Your Kingdom awaits!
Update 5th Sep 2011: Added a sample kingdom, as well as sample of play.
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 armor

But 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.

"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

You may now attempt to explain what realism has to do with D&D.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
I have already addressed the relevance of realism twice, in posts #6 and #9.

"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

You may now attempt to explain what realism has to do with D&D.



Well, since people have the option to inject whatever realism into the game that they wish, he does not need to.  He simply paralleled an example.  It's no different than why humans walk on 2 legs in D&D.  I don't see any reason to explain why this realism was carried over.

It's a matter of taste.

For me, I would expect there to be some semblance of realism in actions.  Why would creatures decide to ambush a sleeping party if the party was wearing armor?  The point of the ambush is the catch the party as off-guard as possible to put them at a disadvantage.  Just make sure to balance the encounter appropriately, and an unarmored paladin is not an issue.
Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept. Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new. Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept. Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept. Default module =/= Core mechanic.
DnD characters are heroes well above normal minions that make up most rank and file.  That's good enough reason for me to beleive the paladin could sleep in his plate.  What you have to ask is not wether real armies through history would sleep in armour but would Aragorn sleep in armour, would Gimli sleep in armour or would the Black Knight sleep in armour.
You may now attempt to explain what realism has to do with D&D.





It's a matter of taste.






Indeed, that's my whole point.

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 heavy armor should tire out your characters more quickly than not sleeping in heavy armor.

Another way of houseruling it would be to rule that if a character spends the night in armor, he or she gets the benefits only of a short, not an extended, rest. This too would be relatively accurate, as it sometimes occured that commanders ordered their troops to stay up all night in armor when they were expecting an attack. The chroniclers often note that this fatigued the forces when they had to fight the next day.

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.

"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



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 Wizard is there slinging fireballs around, which is not realistic at all but it's allowed because he's a Wizard, that's why they do in fantasy. Similarly, why isn't sleeping in heavy armor something a Fighter or Paladin does in fantasy? The Wizard is able to use his Intelligence modifier for his armor class, fluffed as either some prescient sense of incoming attacks or an actual arcane shield but the Paladin or Fighter isn't simply such a tough badass that they can get by sleeping in their armor? Just because something in the rules has a real life comparison does not mean that rule is meant to be compared to real life. Or to put it another way, just because the fantasy element is not spelled out in bold print doesn't mean there is not a fantasy element at work.

If you want an encounter to take the party by surprise in their sleep and penalize the party for not being prepared then apply the penalties across the board. Don't let the Wizard benefit from their Int or the Rogue their Dex for AC purposes. Create a specially tailored encounter specifically for this scenario and make it fair to all involved. How much fun is a paragon tier encounter for the Paladin, meant to take the brunt of many attacks, when you hand out a -15/16 penalty to AC while the rest of the party is fine? Apparently the Paladin can realistically go toe to toe with Demons and other foes with his deities blessing but it's totally not kosher for his deity to grant him some extra toughness to sleep in armor?

In my campaign, a paladin would have a code to adhere to completely dependant on the deity she worshipped.  Proper treatment and care of her armor (weapon, shield, holy symbol, etc.) may be a nightly ritual.

Some DM's may not want to go to this level of detail and some DM's may want the ritual described in detail so they have an understanding of what the NPCs will encounter when they do finally ambush.
Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept. Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new. Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept. Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept. Default module =/= Core mechanic.

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.

"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

I should note too that I'm not just a vindictive DM trying to kill my players through unfair tactics. I've been on the other side too; my warlord once fought a battle in nothing but his nightshirt, and almost died because of it. I didn't complain because I found it to be realistic, and therefore helped me to suspend my disbelief in a way that makes the game more satisfying for me.

If you don't like it when some players suffer penalties and not others, then prioritize balance and ignore realism. Let's just not pretend that we're being realistic by allowing characters to get a good night's sleep while encased in a suit of steel platemail.

"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


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.


Except that the 'physics' that exists in D&D isn't the physics that exist in the real world. PC defy it in more ways I can even begin to count. Why is not caring about the difficulty of sleeping in armor simply another example of the regular manner in which PC's defy all kinds of physical rules. As I said, just because you think something should be analogized to how it might work in the real world does not mean the developers did not willfully ignore real world physics and instead intentionally have PC's break that real world mechanic.

Physics, as such, does not exist in D&D. What exists is a lose approximation of physics and near infinite exceptions to these physics that the PC's break.

The long jump world record is about 30 feet, or 6 squares. It's a DC30 with a 10 foot running start to clear that distance. A level 1 PC with a decent athletics is capable of getting that. At higher levels PC's would blow away realism here quite easily. Should PC's not be allowed to surpass that because it isn't realistic? Like sleeping in armor it has a real world analogue. Similarly, that analogue does not hold true.

It is your choice, as a DM, to institute whatever house rules you like but if you want to penalize a PC just say so and do it, which is unfair to that PC when compared to others in the party. But relying upon physical realism to do so in a game that specifically does not apply real world physics is not an excuse. You are the one penalizing the PC, not physics.

It's actually kinda interesting that this particular subject comes up so often. All other RPGS (include AD&D 1e, 2e, and even hyper-realistic RPG's) never mentioned a penalty for sleeping in armor, and if 3e had never gave a penalty I'm pretty sure that no one would be clamoring to have one now.
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.
Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept. Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new. Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept. Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept. Default module =/= Core mechanic.
A system that allows human characters to make world-breaking longjumps with ease is a needlessly unrealistic system. And yes, the 4e mechanics are not realistic in this regard, as they do not accurately represent the physics here; other game systems do a much better job of that. Of course, we all know that 4e made a conscious choice to disregard realism in favour of simplicity and balance. Some of us like to make houserules in order to account for the more unnecessarily inaccurate rules, because they interrupt our suspension of disbelief; others do not. What aspects of the game your group finds unbelievable will vary. But the physics of human bodies remain the same whether or not the game represents them accurately or inaccurately. So I see no reason not to improve the game's accuracy and realism when it can be accomplished with relative ease, as in this case.

Was it me or physics that was penalizing the characters for sleeping in armor under the 3.5 ruleset?

"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

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.



A good point, IMHO.

I should note that I apply my houseruled 'sleeping in armor' rules to the monsters as well. If the PCs can sneak into their camp while they are asleep, the monsters won't be able to put their armor on. This encourages the characters to think tactically.

"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


Yes, I can prove they didn't.




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.

Can you provide counter-examples of armies actually sleeping in full plate?




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.

The historical evidence shows without a doubt that armies slept without armor even when in enemy territory and expecting an enemy 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.  It is interesting that your examples date from long before the Age of Plate Armour, while mine took place during plate armour's heyday.

As it happens, I own and regularly wear a full plate harness, a replica of a late 15th century Italian suit, in which I take part in combat re-enactment.  I daresay that my armour is a great deal heavier and all-enclosing, more accurate, and better-tailored than what one sees on SCA fighters.  Thus, I feel that I am qualified to speak with authority on this subject.

3456868063_0b4a025ee9_m.jpg

4731149990_516e2c2386_m.jpg

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. 



Since we're whipping out our codpieces... :D

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.  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.
Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept. Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new. Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept. Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept. Default module =/= Core mechanic.



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?










No, I have proved that in many cases they did indeed feel it necessary but nevertheless either could or would not do so. 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.










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.

And do the Memoirs of Jehan suggest that the heavy cavalry column got a good night's sleep, or merely that they remained on alert until the morning?



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.







 

Indeed. And they stayed awake when they did.

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. 










I certainly respect your perspective and the personal knowledge of the issue that you clearly possess. But I wonder, if you suspect it wouldn't be that bad to sleep in full plate, why do you think then that it was not standard practice, historically speaking, for armies to sleep in armor? Because it is quite clear that it was not. Maybe someday you will try to sleep in your armor for a full night, and let us know how it goes?

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?

Are you sure that if you spent the entire night in your armor, you wouldn't find yourself a little more fatigued the next day? And remember that that is really all we am representing, as DMs, when we impose a penalty of a healing surge or two on characters that fail an Endurance check to sleep in their armor.

"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

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.

I also pointed out that if you want the party to be ambushed while they are asleep, or otherwise unprepared, and replicate the sense of their unpreparedness to simply impose an across the board penalty on all classes so that it is fair and balanced.

For example. The party is ambushed in their sleep. All characters are caught unaware, the Paladin's armor is hanging off him so that it is more comfortable to sleep in, the Rogue is groggy from a deep sleep, the Wizard didn't have time to activate his arcane defenses, etc. The penalty? All characters grant Combat Advantage for the duration of the encounter because they were unprepared. Or, in the alternative, all characters are granting Combat Advantage (Save Ends) to represent them trying to get their defenses in order as the fight goes on. Voila.

The game is premised on a rough parity between classes and a penalty that applies to only a select few throws off that balance. Realism does not need to play into the equation because the game is not designed to be realistic, the PC's can and do break numerous laws of physics all the time.

If a DM wants to make an encounter more difficult to represent what is in their minds a realistic concern then come up with a balanced mechanic for doing so. In my above example the entire party is penalized for being caught off guard. Additionally, the party would likely suffer a surprise round for being unaware and if you design the encounter with Lurkers or other enemies that play off Combat Advantage it would in fact be quite challenging to the entire party not just the unlucky sap that happens to wear heavy armor. 
Well, we're all sharing our thoughts and opinions.  There is no right or wrong answer here. 
Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept. Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new. Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept. Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept. Default module =/= Core mechanic.
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


This 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.

Well, to be fair, that is why the adventurer's kit includes a bedroll Smile

"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

Since we're whipping out our codpieces... :D

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.  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.



I think this is probably the best reason to oppose sleeping in armor...

... if the local inn offers PosturpedicTM mattresses and orthopedic pillows.

I too, did did the SCA thing, though my armor was a more modest brigandine. I too napped in my armor and found my helmet effective at blocking out the sun so I could do so. But I also backpack and sleep on the hard ground. And I've slept on bad mattresses with crappy pillows and woke up with back pains and a stiff neck. And I did the NERO/SOLAR thing and wore armor (tho' just a 16ga butted mail hauberk and lowerleg plate) while I slept for a couple of nights, cause they did PVP and cabin raids. In my opinion they all pretty much have their drawbacks, which is why we now have good mattresses and pillows. But it doesn't really matter whether you sleep on a saggy craptactular camp/mideaval mattress or wear armor when you do so. Either are preferable to sleeping in the ground.

In fact I'll take sleeping in properly fitted and padded armor over a bedroll on the ground anyday.
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



This 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.




lol.

Most realistic house rule ever.
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 armor

But 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.







At some point you have to disarm and wash the fleas and lice out. If your environment is full of fleas and lice, wearing armor 24/7 would be uncomfortable and unhealthy to say the least. So you douse your armor in lye or arsenic or some other primitive concoction that produces as many problems as it solves.

But that's not really a problem today or in D&D.

I have Off spray, a washing machine for my gambeson and a regemine of cleanliness for myself. My environment isn't festering in parasites.

And the party Cleric has a Banish Vermin Ritual.

On the other hand, at the end of the day, even if you are just sweaty and hot, taking off your armor FEELS REALLY GOOD. You shed 50lbs+, take a shower, and feel awesome and (dare I say) powerful. It's almost intoxicating. 

So, I could see making a house rule about a "stoicism-test" and wearing armor all the time, maybe make them spend a few more guilders for fitted armor, but if you aren't making your PCs make weekly disease checks its not that big a deal.

PS: I still roleplay my characters as sleeping out of their armor as they are generaly moraly opposed to underwear as well.

In the vast majority of my experiences, the reason certain players like the idea of sleeping in their armor is that they can not bear to be not at 100% at all times. It has nothing to do with class balance or being realistic or unrealistic.



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.



Don't trust the popular image.  It is known that, while the infantry among the conquistadores tended to abandon their European steel armour in favor of the local cotton armour worn by the natives, their cavalry retained a lot more metal armour throughout Cortes's campaigns, up to and including what might nowadays be termed "three-quarter plate."  Del Castillo makes it clear that he is referring to the cavalry in this passage in the sentence that follows the mention of sleeping in armour.  He goes on to say, "I grew so accustomed to going about armed and sleeping in the way I have described...I slept better that way than on a mattress."  Furthermore, he states that Cortes laid down rules that mandated, "... that no soldier, horseman, crossbowman, and musketeer    should sleep except in complete armour."

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?


I remain unconvinced that it was a universal practice to take off one's armour when danger was imminent.  If you're still interested in counter-examples that tell of men keeping their armour on to sleep, I did a little digging and offer the following:

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.
Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept. Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new. Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept. Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept. Default module =/= Core mechanic.
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.
Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept. Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new. Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept. Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept. Default module =/= Core mechanic.
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.

To restate my previous point, I simply think in structuring a rule you should ask yourself what this rule is meant to accomplish. 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. If you are planning to attack the PC's in their sleep then presumably the 'realism' aspect you are going for is that PC's aren't as prepared for fighting when they sleep. So, the purpose of the penalty is really to discourage wearing armor so you can simulate the PC's being unprepared for attack while they sleep. If that's the purpose then there are simply easier ways within the actual rules to accomplish this that are balanced for the entire party. As I mentioned before, have a surprise round, have the PC's grant CA for the duration of the encounter or CA (Save Ends), have the PC's need to spend a minor action to retrieve weapons/implements since they'd be by their sides or in sheathes, etc. Now, you've accomplished the real objective of being able to simulate PC's being unprepared in their sleep and it does not single out one particular character or class and makes for an interesting encounter where the PC's have to deal with the CA they are granting which can be made more lethal by using enemies that have bonuses to enemies they attack with CA.
And that's perfectly fine if that's what you want to do.  Other people may want to choose to do it another way, which is why this topic was initiated and people are contributing their ideas to it and discussing it.

So people put options out there, they are discussed, and whoever wishes to employ this homebrew can choose which method they think is best.  Surely doesn't make my or anyone else's suggestions any more wrong or yours any more right.

 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.


I have to laugh at this.  Because if it would never come into play for a DM, then this homebrew would never need to be investigated or used by that DM.  This is for people that obviously wish to employ sleeping in armor rules for whatever reason.  One can make the assumption that the party will be needed to be at attention for whatever reason over the course of a night's sleep, so this point is completely irrelevant to this topic.
Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept. Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new. Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept. Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept. Default module =/= Core mechanic.
Since we're whipping out our codpieces... :D

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.  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.




FWIW, as a U.S. Army veteran, I have slept in full gear many times.  I'll grant that it is certainly more comfortable to sleep without all that gear and armor on, but it certainly is possible and, with at least minimal rest, when the adrenaline starts pumping...  well, one functions just fine.

That's all an aside to the real point.l though, that there are no rules against it in 4e and that's no mistake - its a deliberate simplification from 3e.  Do we really need a rule for everything - sheesh, as it is it's too hard to track stuff, we sure don't need more things to worry about.

One of the things that has always bogged down D&D is the desire to add more "realism" to a simple combat system.