D&D General Huge Equipment Lists: Good, Bad, or Ugly?

[Mannahnin]

From a pure gameplay perspective the issue for me is that only a minority of builds are penalized. Dexterity is already the super stat for non-casters, we don't need to penalize strength based characters more. If the penalty is severe and frequently occurs, people will be even more discouraged from playing a common archetype for reasons that have little to do with realism.

In other words I don't think we should insist on having penalties for armor while ignoring how armor actually works. Armor in D&D is not accurately portrayed. D&D has a long history of making compromises and oversimplifications to streamline play, it's always struck me as odd that people insist that this one aspect needs to be more "realistic". Especially when there's scant evidence it actually achieves that goal.

Definitely one of my issues with D&D. It wants to support the unarmored swashbuckler archetype alongside the armored knight, but Dex has so many benefits that it becomes a god stat and you don't see many Strength builds nowadays.

 

[Staffan]

If you try to do it for more than a week, it'll add up. But a young, fit soldier could do it for a while.

So if you wanted to add a "realistic" penalty, you need to have 1/7th of a level of exhaustion. At some point, the granularity needed isn't worth the effort.

I think it might be more reasonable to say that resting in armor can't take you below exhaustion 1. Well, it would if the exhaustion rules were a bit more granular so you'd normally be taking several levels over the course of a day and then recover them all on a good night's sleep.

(This is similar to how in Vampire 5th ed, a vampire can't go below Hunger 1 without fully draining a human. If you're just sipping, it doesn't matter how many you sip from, the last bit of thirst can't be slaked without someone dying.)

 

[borringman]

In other words I don't think we should insist on having penalties for armor while ignoring how armor actually works. Armor in D&D is not accurately portrayed. D&D has a long history of making compromises and oversimplifications to streamline play, it's always struck me as odd that people insist that this one aspect needs to be more "realistic".

I see it as, you take what you can get. Especially with D&D, if we're going off the lowest common denominator to justify tossing out realism for everything else, then adventures might as well take place in wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey swirls of chaos where your armor can just as easily turn into a pink elephant and squash you*, because D&D is already a raging uncontrolled mess to anyone with regard for historical or physical accuracy. Accurate combat is always going to be a challenge, but pretty much everyone understands that it's hard to sleep well when you're extremely uncomfortable. We can make it feel more real for very little downside, so why not?

Not sleeping in armor doesn't mean not fighting in armor, for the most part (unless your DM is sadistic but that's really its own problem), so I guess I'm confused as to why this is where we draw a line in the sand? Sure, martials have it bad in D&D, but for that discussion I have much bigger bones to pick than what they wear to bed.

*I'm sure this has happened at a table somewhere.

 

[James Gasik]

DM decides "hey, random encounters to interrupt the player's long rest are a thing, right?".

Let's assume everyone wakes up and isn't surprised or caught napping (which is bad for everyone).

Rogue: "I'm fine, I can sleep in studded leather armor, full AC!".

Ranger: "Me too. Plus I'm sleeping in a tree so monsters can't get me."

Monk: "I mean, I'm always fine."

Barbarian: "I'm down a few points since I can't put on my magic half-plate, but at least I got my unarmored AC."

Druid: "Like my armor ever mattered."

Wizard: "Hey, I think my last Mage Armor is still running, we only got three hours of sleep!".

Cleric, Fighter, and Paladin: "".

DM: "Aw come on guys, it's realistic! Doesn't this make you feel more immersed in the setting?"

 

[Micah Sweet]

From a pure gameplay perspective the issue for me is that only a minority of builds are penalized. Dexterity is already the super stat for non-casters, we don't need to penalize strength based characters more. If the penalty is severe and frequently occurs, people will be even more discouraged from playing a common archetype for reasons that have little to do with realism.

In other words I don't think we should insist on having penalties for armor while ignoring how armor actually works. Armor in D&D is not accurately portrayed. D&D has a long history of making compromises and oversimplifications to streamline play, it's always struck me as odd that people insist that this one aspect needs to be more "realistic". Especially when there's scant evidence it actually achieves that goal.

I think many aspects of the game could stand to be more realistic, not just armor. In my games I strive to insert as much realism as the players will let me get away with.

 

[Micah Sweet]

DM decides "hey, random encounters to interrupt the player's long rest are a thing, right?".

Let's assume everyone wakes up and isn't surprised or caught napping (which is bad for everyone).

Rogue: "I'm fine, I can sleep in studded leather armor, full AC!".

Ranger: "Me too. Plus I'm sleeping in a tree so monsters can't get me."

Monk: "I mean, I'm always fine."

Barbarian: "I'm down a few points since I can't put on my magic half-plate, but at least I got my unarmored AC."

Druid: "Like my armor ever mattered."

Wizard: "Hey, I think my last Mage Armor is still running, we only got three hours of sleep!".

Cleric, Fighter, and Paladin: "".

DM: "Aw come on guys, it's realistic! Doesn't this make you feel more immersed in the setting?"

I see no issue with this, except that heavy armor should do more for you than it does, and mages should have to re-cast. This is a gamist argument and I don't feel gamism should trump logic here.

 

[LordBP]

Fair enough. I was figuring the carrier would have more points of support, better straps/webbing, and more comfortable materials.

I wish they did have, but it probably met the specifications that the military provided and they probably don't put comfort that high on the needs list. They are much better than the older LBE system though.

Though the helmets have gotten better over the years and actually does have a much better system for fitting your head now than 20-30 years ago.

 

[James Gasik]

The way I see it, if the rules get in the way of the game being fun, then the rules have to go. If "realism" gets in the way of the game being fun, then it also has to go. By the same token, if "fantasy" gets in the way of the game being fun, it also has to go.

Fun being subjective, of course. My current group seems to enjoy magical chaos and I've rarely heard anyone complain about "that's not realistic so I'm no longer having fun"- but it can happen, and I've done it myself.

For example, way back in 4e, I was playing this Living Forgotten Realms adventure called "Dancing Shadows". The penultimate encounter is with a black dragon. The adventure calls for the dragon to get away when seriously wounded, so that the final battle will have it (somewhat healed) and it's mate present.

We had it slowed and prone when the DM announced "it gets away" and my instant reaction was "how?! why?!". That "the adventure says so" wasn't good enough for me in that moment.

Granted, after the fact, I realized that it wasn't the dragon escaping that bothered me, it was the fact that there was no explanation, nothing to interact with, it just happens. If the adventure presented a reason, like maybe a magic item that teleports the dragon away when it's near death, it still feels cheap, but it's not out of bounds for a fantasy TTRPG.

But in the end, it's a concession I had to make because what's the alternative? The final battle is easier and less challenging? Does that make the game more fun? Maybe in the short run, you can feel good about "winning more" due to your actions...but ultimately, unless that last battle ended up being a TPK (which it wasn't for me), the only real change is that the DM goes from having the fun of "two dragons!" to "oh well, I know you can beat one dragon, ho hum", lol.

In a similar vein, by letting the PC's sleep in armor, they can't really complain when they surprise their evil Fighter villain in his lair and find he's wearing his +1 Plate jammies!

 

[Micah Sweet]

The way I see it, if the rules get in the way of the game being fun, then the rules have to go. If "realism" gets in the way of the game being fun, then it also has to go. By the same token, if "fantasy" gets in the way of the game being fun, it also has to go.

Fun being subjective, of course. My current group seems to enjoy magical chaos and I've rarely heard anyone complain about "that's not realistic so I'm no longer having fun"- but it can happen, and I've done it myself.

For example, way back in 4e, I was playing this Living Forgotten Realms adventure called "Dancing Shadows". The penultimate encounter is with a black dragon. The adventure calls for the dragon to get away when seriously wounded, so that the final battle will have it (somewhat healed) and it's mate present.

We had it slowed and prone when the DM announced "it gets away" and my instant reaction was "how?! why?!". That "the adventure says so" wasn't good enough for me in that moment.

Granted, after the fact, I realized that it wasn't the dragon escaping that bothered me, it was the fact that there was no explanation, nothing to interact with, it just happens. If the adventure presented a reason, like maybe a magic item that teleports the dragon away when it's near death, it still feels cheap, but it's not out of bounds for a fantasy TTRPG.

But in the end, it's a concession I had to make because what's the alternative? The final battle is easier and less challenging? Does that make the game more fun? Maybe in the short run, you can feel good about "winning more" due to your actions...but ultimately, unless that last battle ended up being a TPK (which it wasn't for me), the only real change is that the DM goes from having the fun of "two dragons!" to "oh well, I know you can beat one dragon, ho hum", lol.

In a similar vein, by letting the PC's sleep in armor, they can't really complain when they surprise their evil Fighter villain in his lair and find he's wearing his +1 Plate jammies!

See, for me, intentional choices in the rules to make the game less realistic (obviously assuming no supernatural element is involved) make the game less fun for me, unless I deem that choice to be necessary for practical play.

Unfortunately, I have a higher tolerance for realistic rules than my players do, so I always have to compromise. Could be worse though. At least I got them to switch to Level Up!

 

[James Gasik]

I see no issue with this, except that heavy armor should do more for you than it does, and mages should have to re-cast. This is a gamist argument and I don't feel gamism should trump logic here.

Ok, so the mage has to re-cast. Takes one action. It's not like the heavy armor users have a prayer of getting their defenses back. And even if armor had more benefits, in this scenario, some of the group no longer has armor at all, so they're even worse off.

If you're ok with game balance being sacrificed on the altar of simulation, that's fine, but I have reservations. I had a DM who used to think it was fun to have the Thieves' lockpicks break when they failed to open a lock (much like they do in The Elder Scrolls). He thought it was great fun until we ended up in a scenario where the Thief was no longer able to open locks at all. That may or may not have been more realistic, but it wasn't very enjoyable. And then, the next time we hit town, we bought five sets of Thieves' Tools and it was never an issue again.