Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Kobold Stew" data-source="post: 6407434" data-attributes="member: 23484">I like the idea behind Zaruthustran's proposal here; I think it can be made simpler. I think the anecdotes presented in this thread are sufficient that we shouldn't practically be distinguishing between light and heavy armours. Sure, Chain might be easy to sleep in, but overall, I think that *whatever-it-is-we're-attempting-to-define is not (or should not be) for heavy armours only. Earlier I proposed that someone sleeping in armour not get the benefits of a long rest, only a short rest. That still makes sense to me, but it may be a better rule to allow that only to kick in after a number of nights equal to your CON bonus.&nbsp; So someone with a 14 CON can go two nights in heavy armour, but won't get the benefit of a long rest on the third night. That means that hardy heroes can go without penalty, while still recognizing that historically the practice of armoured soldiers has been not to sleep in armour.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Kobold Stew, post: 6407434, member: 23484"] I like the idea behind Zaruthustran's proposal here; I think it can be made simpler. I think the anecdotes presented in this thread are sufficient that we shouldn't practically be distinguishing between light and heavy armours. Sure, Chain might be easy to sleep in, but overall, I think that *whatever-it-is-we're-attempting-to-define is not (or should not be) for heavy armours only. Earlier I proposed that someone sleeping in armour not get the benefits of a long rest, only a short rest. That still makes sense to me, but it may be a better rule to allow that only to kick in after a number of nights equal to your CON bonus. So someone with a 14 CON can go two nights in heavy armour, but won't get the benefit of a long rest on the third night. That means that hardy heroes can go without penalty, while still recognizing that historically the practice of armoured soldiers has been not to sleep in armour. [/QUOTE]

Verification