Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Spido" data-source="post: 4287654" data-attributes="member: 68264">This might be a case where it is worth considering the advice in the DMG in the section entitled &quot;Rules Design 101&quot; (Pg. 189).1 - Why do I want to change or add this rule?It is logical that sleeping in armor is going to be less comfortable than sleeping in your MegaTroll(tm) feety pajamas.&nbsp; Therefore, for real-world consistency, one should be &quot;penalized&quot; for doing so.2 - What should the change accomplish?Including a penalty for sleeping in armor naturally provides an incentive to NOT sleep in armor.&nbsp; When does this become an issue?&nbsp; Only when an attack comes during an extended rest.&nbsp; Therefore, a rule that discourages sleeping in armor is only important if the DM wants to stage encounters that disrupt extended rests and put the melee classes at a disadvantage in such encounters.&nbsp; It takes 5 minutes to don armor (PHB pg. 212), so the melee fighters can grab a shield, at best.&nbsp; A DM should really only institute a rule for sleeping in armor if it is important for the game that characters are attacked on a relatively regular basis during extended rests and the DM wants them to be vulnerable in these encounters (or penalize them in some way for choosing not to be vulnerable).3 - How should my new rule accomplish my goal?Many implementations have been suggested already in this thread.&nbsp; The simplest solution would be to rule that you cannot gain any benefits from an extended rest while wearing armor.&nbsp; The 3e design conceit that you should have the option to do whatever silly thing you want, but at a cost, doesn't necessarily need to be applied to 4e.&nbsp; The balancing concern is how much do you want to punish your fighters for sleeping in armor.&nbsp; If it is too minor, they will continue to sleep in armor at the cost of a small annoyance (DM doesn't get vulnerable fighters during extended rests, and fighters get dinged).&nbsp; If it is too major, they will always be vulnerable during combat encounters that come during extended rests (DM gets vulnerable fighters during extended rests, and fighters get severely dinged if there is an encounter).&nbsp; Either way, you would be creating a rule that &quot;penalizes&quot; the melee fighters, and provides no benefits (other than being armored in combat encounters that come during rests).&nbsp; Sounds like an &quot;un-fun&quot; undertaking overall.&nbsp; 4e == game4e &lt;&gt; simulationCheers,-Spido</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Spido, post: 4287654, member: 68264"] This might be a case where it is worth considering the advice in the DMG in the section entitled "Rules Design 101" (Pg. 189). 1 - Why do I want to change or add this rule? It is logical that sleeping in armor is going to be less comfortable than sleeping in your MegaTroll(tm) feety pajamas. Therefore, for real-world consistency, one should be "penalized" for doing so. 2 - What should the change accomplish? Including a penalty for sleeping in armor naturally provides an incentive to NOT sleep in armor. When does this become an issue? Only when an attack comes during an extended rest. Therefore, a rule that discourages sleeping in armor is only important if the DM wants to stage encounters that disrupt extended rests and put the melee classes at a disadvantage in such encounters. It takes 5 minutes to don armor (PHB pg. 212), so the melee fighters can grab a shield, at best. A DM should really only institute a rule for sleeping in armor if it is important for the game that characters are attacked on a relatively regular basis during extended rests and the DM wants them to be vulnerable in these encounters (or penalize them in some way for choosing not to be vulnerable). 3 - How should my new rule accomplish my goal? Many implementations have been suggested already in this thread. The simplest solution would be to rule that you cannot gain any benefits from an extended rest while wearing armor. The 3e design conceit that you should have the option to do whatever silly thing you want, but at a cost, doesn't necessarily need to be applied to 4e. The balancing concern is how much do you want to punish your fighters for sleeping in armor. If it is too minor, they will continue to sleep in armor at the cost of a small annoyance (DM doesn't get vulnerable fighters during extended rests, and fighters get dinged). If it is too major, they will always be vulnerable during combat encounters that come during extended rests (DM gets vulnerable fighters during extended rests, and fighters get severely dinged if there is an encounter). Either way, you would be creating a rule that "penalizes" the melee fighters, and provides no benefits (other than being armored in combat encounters that come during rests). Sounds like an "un-fun" undertaking overall. 4e == game 4e <> simulation Cheers, -Spido [/QUOTE]

Verification