D&D 4th Edition RulesAsk questions about 4th-Edition rules and the like in here. General discussion about 4E or any other game belongs in General RPG Discussion, above.
Garbage like that was the reason why party MUs used to have to fight my Fighters over who got the Bracers of Defense in older versions. It sucks when you can't do the job for the party that you're supposed to.
Sleeping in you armour, when you're out on the trail, is only sensible in a fantasy setting and being overly realistic does nothing but kill the suspension of disbelief necessary to good, and fun, role play. If it's that important to a GM that they can't sleep in their armour, then for an extra 1000gp I'd let them modify their armour so that they could do the Wonder Woman spin and summon it onto themselves in a quick-change.
Actually, Summoned Armor costs pretty much the same as standard magic armor.
After reading a few suggestions, I'm leaning toward allowing characters sleep in heavy armor (who have proficiency in it). Otherwise, some classes may be at a comparative disadvantage, and may not be able to fulfill their role in certain encounters.
In situations where the party is expected to keep watch, I'll assume everyone is sleeping 'at ready' with all of their equipment (e.g., a dungeon or in the wilderness). When they have the expectation of safety (warranted or not) I'll assume they sleep without armor (e.g., an inn).
__________________ You have died of dysentery.
Last edited by fnwc; 21st April 2009 at 05:08 AM..
Seems damn reasonable to me if the damned fool left his shield on as well.
Well, to be fair, you said just suffer the armor check penalties to all rolls. You didn't really specify that it was only for the armor actually worn. Or, to put that more clearly, your wording didn't specifically say that it was only the check penalty for the armor you were wearing, rather than just your total armor check penalty whenever you wear heavy armor while sleeping.
Even if it's only a -2 to all rolls though, that's still a pretty hefty penalty. That's equivalent to being rattled at all times, or always attacking an enemy while marked. Where's the tradeoff for lighter armor? Or for Scale, which doesn't even have a check penalty?
The problem is that you're rather unfairly punishing a certain subset of PC's. It gets even worse because even if you say "no armor at all", the light armor users with high DEX/INT will still have a massive advantage over the low DEX/INT classes that were wearing heavy armor. It's just rather nonsensical and can end up forcing PC's to always make certain decisions such as always sleeping in a town during an extended rest, using summoned armor for the heavy armor users (thus eliminating 99% of their potential armor enchantment choices) and could even result in unintended and random TPK's during relatively weak encounters because the heavy armor users will practically be auto-hit on anything but a 1 past a certain level.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryujin
I know that, but that would limit them to just the summoned property. That would kind of defeat the purpose.
That's something that I worry about happening, is all of the heavy armor uses essentially being forced into taking summoned armor. Your original post about paying extra to add the property to a suit of armor was a decent one, but it still ends up unfairly penalizing the heavy armor users, but mostly just at low levels when money is tight.
The only problem with it is that, in the end, almost everyone is going to add the summoned property to their armor. So why not just let them sleep in the armor in the first place? Otherwise, you're basically just instituting a mandatory tax that they have to pay, but not really changing anything else about the game. What does it actually add to the game here?
-1 to all rolls or a missing healing surge is just a tad more than what an uncomfortable night's sleep should give. A surge is a good stabbing with a sword, while a -1 is a loss of two levels.
A friend of mine who slept overnight in a suit of armor said it was like sleeping in an uncomfortable bed.
Add that to the problems with the game that arise if you heavily penalise 50% of the classes in the game, and I think you've not really got a compelling reason to force people to lose the armor over night.
That's something that I worry about happening, is all of the heavy armor uses essentially being forced into taking summoned armor. Your original post about paying extra to add the property to a suit of armor was a decent one, but it still ends up unfairly penalizing the heavy armor users, but mostly just at low levels when money is tight.
The only problem with it is that, in the end, almost everyone is going to add the summoned property to their armor. So why not just let them sleep in the armor in the first place? Otherwise, you're basically just instituting a mandatory tax that they have to pay, but not really changing anything else about the game. What does it actually add to the game here?
Which is why I feel that it shouldn't be penalized and have never done so in any game that I've run; it just honks people off. I see some things as being penalized by necessity, like poor party balance (they'll find another way to do things that need doing). Simple mechanics like sleeping in your armour are just picking nits. Ultimately there's a breaking point, beyond which things just aren't fun. What's next; tripping over your scabbard because you decided to use a wooden, rather than leather one?
Some things have a real impact on play. Others should just be hand-waved away.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saeviomagy
-1 to all rolls or a missing healing surge is just a tad more than what an uncomfortable night's sleep should give. A surge is a good stabbing with a sword, while a -1 is a loss of two levels.
A friend of mine who slept overnight in a suit of armor said it was like sleeping in an uncomfortable bed.
Add that to the problems with the game that arise if you heavily penalise 50% of the classes in the game, and I think you've not really got a compelling reason to force people to lose the armor over night.
If you were going for something reasonable, that wasn't too serious a detriment, then perhaps a penalty of -1 to the first encounter/5 minutes would be a good one? Wake up, break camp, and you're good to go. Get surprised in the night and you aren't at your best.
If you were going for something reasonable, that wasn't too serious a detriment, then perhaps a penalty of -1 to the first encounter/5 minutes would be a good one? Wake up, break camp, and you're good to go. Get surprised in the night and you aren't at your best.
Well... get surprised in the night and you start your first round surprised and prone, possibly unconscious if you're surprised badly enough. There's a decent chance you're in the dark, and that your foes have cover or concealment.
IOW - you're pretty screwed by a night ambush already.
Well... get surprised in the night and you start your first round surprised and prone, possibly unconscious if you're surprised badly enough. There's a decent chance you're in the dark, and that your foes have cover or concealment.
IOW - you're pretty screwed by a night ambush already.
That's one of the reasons why I don't support a penalty in the first place and simply offered this as a quite minimal addition, for those who actually want to use one.
The problem is that you're rather unfairly punishing a certain subset of PC's.
It isn't unfair and it isn't punishing. The problem comes about not because some characters are better in armour than out but because some characters are getting unreasonable benefits without armour. They wanted 20 stat + raises + light armor to be as good as heavy armour, and the result is you can't take people out of their heavy armour or this problem shows up. So don't take them out of their heavy armour or they'll suddenly be less heroic than they are meant to be. Unless they're battleragers. Strip those suckers bare. Rust monster, black pudding, rust monster.
It isn't unfair and it isn't punishing. The problem comes about not because some characters are better in armour than out but because some characters are getting unreasonable benefits without armour. They wanted 20 stat + raises + light armor to be as good as heavy armour, and the result is you can't take people out of their heavy armour or this problem shows up. So don't take them out of their heavy armour or they'll suddenly be less heroic than they are meant to be. Unless they're battleragers. Strip those suckers bare. Rust monster, black pudding, rust monster.
Yeah, okay...except the Wizard with an 18 INT still beat the crap out of my AC. Even with a relatively low stat you can still be pretty far ahead of Heavy Armor user out of his armor. Then, if you want to go even farther then assume everyone has a 10 DEX and the people in light armor will still be 2 to 3 points of AC ahead of the heavy armor guys if you allow light armor guys to sleep in their armor.
Furthermore, I'm not even talking about something like a melee ranger that's trying to match the AC of the Fighter. People in Heavy Armor are almost exclusively frontline PC's. By stripping them of their armor and their only means of defense you destroy their ability to fill their roll. A Wizard, even if he just had cloth and you didn't add his INT to AC, would still be better able to fill his roll because he's supposed to be in the back, protected by the Fighter in heavy armor.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
