Levistus's_Leviathan
5e Freelancer
Naturally. She could be a succubus! In D&D, anything that wants to sleep with you has a 99% chance of planning on killing you.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D 5E Shield Saltiness
- Thread starter tommybahama
- Start date
Ancalagon
Dusty Dragon
In a world like this, you would be a fool not to at least have some light armor and a "side arm" of some sort. And by "you" I don't mean you the PC, I mean you the random NPC (scribe?).
Flamestrike
Legend
Best to attack her first and ransack her place for things of value.
Just to be sure.
Historically in Europe after the fall of Rome till around the 18th century many if not most people were armed.
The minimum would be an eating knife but daggers , hangers (what D&D calls a short sword) and other swords were carried along with bucklers by large numbers of people. Clubs or all kinds were common and there is at least one case of someone going out to a bite at a tavern and having to kill someone with his longbow.
This went on with the addition of pistols, blackjacks and other small and concealed weapons well into the Victorian era.
What would have been unusual is visible armor or weapons of war. This means polearms, great swords which were essentially used as polearms, maces , warhammers and the like were not usually carried,. That longbow was probably a caseof the guy stopping for a drink after target practice and things going terribly wrong.
For non Americans.
A good analogy would be the contemporary USA where in many states pistols are fine for civilians to carry either open or concealed depending on local law and custom hunting arms are fine out in the country.
In most places an AR15 would be provocative or impolite in many cases outside of security situation or shooting practice even though such weapons are nigh ubiquitous. Its sufficiently ingrained that even pro gun carry people consider it very bad form.
Wearing armor too is not common, I have seen soft body armor a time or two worn by civilians and armor like jackets . Its not thought necessary but if people can't see it they don't care.No one outside of a security situation or practice wears anything like the armor you wore. If you can see it, not OK.
D&D worlds are more dangerous though and while common sense and comfort might limit what is carried, I'd guess everyone other than very young children, criminals or slaves is probably armed
TheSword
Legend
That’s beneath you. Flamestrike’s post doesn’t read like that. Go for the ball not the player.
Beyond all talk of weight and chafing. Armour stank, it also required regularly cleaning and minor repair. There was no stainless steel, it rusted and locked, and dented. That’s before even getting hit. A warrior should be taking off their armour when practical to repair and clean it.
If you’ve sat next to someone who absolutely reeks, you’ll have an idea how people would view your disheveled, stinking, dirty character. Maybe some people like playing into that. I suspect not.
Of course this can all be handwaved. I suggest you raise it with the DM. Ravenloft is a Renaissance/Victoriana setting though so it may well be these reactions are specific to the campaign. It also may be that the DM believes it’s not practical to constantly be walking around town with a shield on your arm, and be constantly ready for battle. Maybe give them a break and get into the character more.
Zubatcarteira
Now you're infected by the Musical Doodle
Spending an action to don and doff is indeed RAW, I believe mostly to stop shenanigans like dropping the shield, shooting with a longbow, then grabbing the shield back.
For whether you can reasonably wear it all the time, depends mostly on the setting and the situation you're in. If it's one of those games where you can't walk from town to town without being random encounter'd 27 times, or if you have people in a city actively trying to kill you, then you can bet I'm wearing armor most of the time.
Lastly, I don't think what real people can handle really matters, as D&D characters are very much superhuman in many regards. I'm sure they can handle wearing armor for long considering all the ridiculous shenanigans they can pull already.
For whether you can reasonably wear it all the time, depends mostly on the setting and the situation you're in. If it's one of those games where you can't walk from town to town without being random encounter'd 27 times, or if you have people in a city actively trying to kill you, then you can bet I'm wearing armor most of the time.
Lastly, I don't think what real people can handle really matters, as D&D characters are very much superhuman in many regards. I'm sure they can handle wearing armor for long considering all the ridiculous shenanigans they can pull already.
Let's also not forget that worrying about "realism" when we are all stuck with the tropes of D&D is also ridiculous.
There is no "realism" in a group of five people walking around looking for treasure in random caves and then getting into hand-to-hand skirmishes every couple of hours with other bands of roving treasure hunters. As a trope, it's the height of unrealistic. Especially this same group of five people surviving each and every one of these... probably several hundred... hand-to-hand skirmishes they fight in your typical D&D campaign. If we are talking realism... that's just stupid.
So let's throw the "realism" bugaboo into the toilet. Nothing about D&D is realistic-- even putting aside the fantasy aspects of the game.
The reason why heavy armor wearers wear their heavy armor all the time is so that they can have their normal AC, especially when the DM throws meaningless random encounters at them to fight every hour on the hour because that's what the tropes of D&D entail. Cutting those characters off at the knees by forcing them not to wear their armor because it's "unrealistic" demands then that that DM start purging all the other crap that is "unrealistic". Like for instance... taking Dexterity out of the Armor Class calculation.
Armor Class should be about the class of your armor. That's it! How strong your armor is gives us the calculation on how hard it is to hurt you while wearing it. Dexterity isn't armor-- dexterity is dodging away from attacks, which should be it's own separate calculation in D&D combat. So if you want your heavy armor wearers to NOT wear their heavy armor except when they go into known full-on battles where they spend an hour beforehand getting themselves kitted up? Well... take Dexterity out of the AC calculation. THEN those STR-based heavy armor wearers COULD go down to just wearing leather armor around during the day like everybody else in the party or the town and NOT be totally hosed compared to the PCs who prioritized DEX. If EVERYONE had ACs of 11 or 12 for leather or studded leather armor as they walk around town... then the STR-based warrior types could remain slightly better in combat functionality against all the rogues and such because they'd have higher CONs and hit dice to survive longer.
But if you are going to INSIST on DEX in your AC calculations AND INSIST that a STR-based fighter/paladin type not be allowed to wear their heavy armor all throughout the day (because "realism")... then AT LEAST those characters should get the same bonuses to their AC unarmored as barbarians and monks do. I mean come on... the whole point of the Barbarians and Monks getting to add a second ability score to their AC calculations was so that those two character types could have their whole "unarmored warrior" trope while still remaining competitive against the heavy armored individuals! D&D wanted those tropes in the game, so they invented these bogus game mechanics of adding CON or WIS to calculate those character's ACs. So if you are going to forcefully take the heavy armor away from the STR-based melee warriors that aren't Barbarians... then at the very least they should get to add their CON to their unarmored AC as well. I mean fair is fair.
There is no "realism" in a group of five people walking around looking for treasure in random caves and then getting into hand-to-hand skirmishes every couple of hours with other bands of roving treasure hunters. As a trope, it's the height of unrealistic. Especially this same group of five people surviving each and every one of these... probably several hundred... hand-to-hand skirmishes they fight in your typical D&D campaign. If we are talking realism... that's just stupid.
So let's throw the "realism" bugaboo into the toilet. Nothing about D&D is realistic-- even putting aside the fantasy aspects of the game.
The reason why heavy armor wearers wear their heavy armor all the time is so that they can have their normal AC, especially when the DM throws meaningless random encounters at them to fight every hour on the hour because that's what the tropes of D&D entail. Cutting those characters off at the knees by forcing them not to wear their armor because it's "unrealistic" demands then that that DM start purging all the other crap that is "unrealistic". Like for instance... taking Dexterity out of the Armor Class calculation.
Armor Class should be about the class of your armor. That's it! How strong your armor is gives us the calculation on how hard it is to hurt you while wearing it. Dexterity isn't armor-- dexterity is dodging away from attacks, which should be it's own separate calculation in D&D combat. So if you want your heavy armor wearers to NOT wear their heavy armor except when they go into known full-on battles where they spend an hour beforehand getting themselves kitted up? Well... take Dexterity out of the AC calculation. THEN those STR-based heavy armor wearers COULD go down to just wearing leather armor around during the day like everybody else in the party or the town and NOT be totally hosed compared to the PCs who prioritized DEX. If EVERYONE had ACs of 11 or 12 for leather or studded leather armor as they walk around town... then the STR-based warrior types could remain slightly better in combat functionality against all the rogues and such because they'd have higher CONs and hit dice to survive longer.
But if you are going to INSIST on DEX in your AC calculations AND INSIST that a STR-based fighter/paladin type not be allowed to wear their heavy armor all throughout the day (because "realism")... then AT LEAST those characters should get the same bonuses to their AC unarmored as barbarians and monks do. I mean come on... the whole point of the Barbarians and Monks getting to add a second ability score to their AC calculations was so that those two character types could have their whole "unarmored warrior" trope while still remaining competitive against the heavy armored individuals! D&D wanted those tropes in the game, so they invented these bogus game mechanics of adding CON or WIS to calculate those character's ACs. So if you are going to forcefully take the heavy armor away from the STR-based melee warriors that aren't Barbarians... then at the very least they should get to add their CON to their unarmored AC as well. I mean fair is fair.
Last edited:
TheSword
Legend
There is at least one scene in Two Towers with Gimli putting on chain armour, so it stands to reason that on occasion he takes it off too.
Hes also not wearing full plate. I’m sure some armour is easier to live with than others... plus he definitely stinks... hence Legolas turning his nose up.
FrozenNorth
Hero
Hey, I hear some maidens are into that.
Similar Threads
D&D General
Inspiring Improv
