Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Oofta" data-source="post: 9026830" data-attributes="member: 6801845">Since we have a simple calculation thanks to [USER=23]@Ancalagon[/USER]  and [USER=7030543]@greg kaye[/USER]  I thought I'd go on a slight rant so feel free to ignore <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> ...There's a video somewhere I found long ago where a guy (probably in his 50s or older) talks about armor and sinking.  In it, he puts on a gambeson that was typically warn under armor followed by a full suit of chain mail.  The gambeson basically acted as a life preserver and he could swim easily, although at a slow speed.  Eventually the gambeson could have become waterlogged of course but in the short term no extra flotation devices were necessary.Do what makes sense of course, but it's not that you're just compensating for a suit of armor, it's more complicated than that.  The idea that you automatically sink like a stone if wearing armor is not that simple.  Especially when it tends to get completely ignored for everyone but the guy wearing heavy armor.  Swimming fully clothed, wearing a backpack, carrying some sort of weapon or quarterstaff and possibly a shield is anything but automatic.  Pretty much everybody but a monk should have trouble with swimming unless they strip first.</blockquote>

Verification