D&D 5E Sleeping in armor

[Kobold Stew]

First off, thanks for the response. I have not slept in armour, and I certainly don't have your personal experience in the field, which I see as having helped confirm (along with the other posters in this thread) what had been a gut instinct when I first posted my response.

So I'm learning a lot, and I believe that it can be supplemented with a historical understanding as well, which is why I asked for the passages from Caesar.

Does that make my solution "simulationist"? I doubt it. I'm not sure there is value in applying labels like that to a single decision; possibly if you looked at all my views on the interaction between rpg rules and narrative, you could make the case, but I'd doubt it. A label like that (which I reject, and would not use to describe my own play style) seems to serve mainly to ghettoize those with different views. It doesn't, I feel, advance the conversation along and it helps to stop us learning from each other. So I'll leave labels aside.

You say you see it as a "fighter tax", and insist that it apply to any armour. I'll deal with those in reverse order. I'm pretty sure I've not said heavy-armour-only, and yes, I'd apply the rule to all armours equally.

Is it a fighter tax? Again, I'd say no. Clerics, Rogues, dwarven wizards are all wearing armour too, as do many classes. Some classes do without, sure, and they'll benefit but I think it cuts across the classes. But again, the label is useful and resonates because of the way it has been used in the past, and serves to marginalize my view.

Finally, while you label your own experience as anecdotal, I take it seriously: it's a practical experience I do not share, and it's useful.

So -- where does that leave me?

As a player, I'm not going to have my character sleep in armour. (I think I could find links to show that I've been undressed in encounters in php games, but that's really just anecdote as well.) Despite your experience, I feel it is something that deserves a penalty, and I'm content for it not to be something I make the DM choose when it comes to my character, if it ever matters. I'll just tax myself, and maybe produce a detail in a story that makes me happy.

As a DM, I don't know. My instinctual response is supported by many of the views in this thread. While it is possible to sleep in armour, there are more obstacles to the practice than I was aware of when this thread started. In a world of magic, I can think of various solutions, and if players wanted to describe themselves regularly cleaning their armour during short rests so they could sleep in it during long ones, that's probably fine.

But that brings us back to simulationism. I'm pretty sure I've not spoken in terms of what's "realistic" or whatever, but in terms of the rules that we've been given. Rules that distinguish between short and long rests (which I want to be mechanically meaningful in play), and rules for donning and doffing armour. If anything drives my solution, I'd suggest it's an interest in seeing the rules we've been given tested and put into play, so that we can see how they work.

I hope this helps clarify where I'm coming from, at least.

 

[Dausuul]

It's still a "fighter tax" (or, more properly, a "heavy-armor-wearer tax"), because it hits the wearers of heavy armor harder than anybody else. A plate-wearing fighter is probably depending on his or her armor for 7-8 points of AC, maybe even 9, whereas the rogue in studded leather is only relying on it for 3. If they both have to go into combat unarmored, the rogue is a lot better off.

 

[Kaylos]

First off, thanks for the response. I have not slept in armour, and I certainly don't have your personal experience in the field, which I see as having helped confirm (along with the other posters in this thread) what had been a gut instinct when I first posted my response.

So I'm learning a lot, and I believe that it can be supplemented with a historical understanding as well, which is why I asked for the passages from Caesar.

Does that make my solution "simulationist"? I doubt it. I'm not sure there is value in applying labels like that to a single decision; possibly if you looked at all my views on the interaction between rpg rules and narrative, you could make the case, but I'd doubt it. A label like that (which I reject, and would not use to describe my own play style) seems to serve mainly to ghettoize those with different views. It doesn't, I feel, advance the conversation along and it helps to stop us learning from each other. So I'll leave labels aside.

You say you see it as a "fighter tax", and insist that it apply to any armour. I'll deal with those in reverse order. I'm pretty sure I've not said heavy-armour-only, and yes, I'd apply the rule to all armours equally.

Is it a fighter tax? Again, I'd say no. Clerics, Rogues, dwarven wizards are all wearing armour too, as do many classes. Some classes do without, sure, and they'll benefit but I think it cuts across the classes. But again, the label is useful and resonates because of the way it has been used in the past, and serves to marginalize my view.

Finally, while you label your own experience as anecdotal, I take it seriously: it's a practical experience I do not share, and it's useful.

So -- where does that leave me?

As a player, I'm not going to have my character sleep in armour. (I think I could find links to show that I've been undressed in encounters in php games, but that's really just anecdote as well.) Despite your experience, I feel it is something that deserves a penalty, and I'm content for it not to be something I make the DM choose when it comes to my character, if it ever matters. I'll just tax myself, and maybe produce a detail in a story that makes me happy.

As a DM, I don't know. My instinctual response is supported by many of the views in this thread. While it is possible to sleep in armour, there are more obstacles to the practice than I was aware of when this thread started. In a world of magic, I can think of various solutions, and if players wanted to describe themselves regularly cleaning their armour during short rests so they could sleep in it during long ones, that's probably fine.

But that brings us back to simulationism. I'm pretty sure I've not spoken in terms of what's "realistic" or whatever, but in terms of the rules that we've been given. Rules that distinguish between short and long rests (which I want to be mechanically meaningful in play), and rules for donning and doffing armour. If anything drives my solution, I'd suggest it's an interest in seeing the rules we've been given tested and put into play, so that we can see how they work.

I hope this helps clarify where I'm coming from, at least.

While I did use the label simulationist, I do not see anything wrong with playing that way. At the end of the day, as long as it works for you and your group is all that really matters.

 

[Elaserdar]

Although an interesting discussion, There is nothing in the rules stating any penalty for doing so that I can find. By and large 5th edition seems to be trying to streamline the game, make it relatively simple, and fun. Having to carry a set of paladin PJs (light armor) just to sleep in so you aren't completely screwed at night has always been annoying for martial characters. It is just one more way that casters are better than non casters really. Or as others have said, a "fighter tax".

Realism or lack thereof aside, it detracts from fun. So either let people sleep in their armor, or vastly speed up the donning rules.

 

[KarinsDad]

First off, thanks for the response. I have not slept in armour, and I certainly don't have your personal experience in the field, which I see as having helped confirm (along with the other posters in this thread) what had been a gut instinct when I first posted my response.

So I'm learning a lot, and I believe that it can be supplemented with a historical understanding as well, which is why I asked for the passages from Caesar.

Does that make my solution "simulationist"? I doubt it. I'm not sure there is value in applying labels like that to a single decision; possibly if you looked at all my views on the interaction between rpg rules and narrative, you could make the case, but I'd doubt it. A label like that (which I reject, and would not use to describe my own play style) seems to serve mainly to ghettoize those with different views. It doesn't, I feel, advance the conversation along and it helps to stop us learning from each other. So I'll leave labels aside.

You say you see it as a "fighter tax", and insist that it apply to any armour. I'll deal with those in reverse order. I'm pretty sure I've not said heavy-armour-only, and yes, I'd apply the rule to all armours equally.

Is it a fighter tax? Again, I'd say no. Clerics, Rogues, dwarven wizards are all wearing armour too, as do many classes. Some classes do without, sure, and they'll benefit but I think it cuts across the classes. But again, the label is useful and resonates because of the way it has been used in the past, and serves to marginalize my view.

Finally, while you label your own experience as anecdotal, I take it seriously: it's a practical experience I do not share, and it's useful.

So -- where does that leave me?

As a player, I'm not going to have my character sleep in armour. (I think I could find links to show that I've been undressed in encounters in php games, but that's really just anecdote as well.) Despite your experience, I feel it is something that deserves a penalty, and I'm content for it not to be something I make the DM choose when it comes to my character, if it ever matters. I'll just tax myself, and maybe produce a detail in a story that makes me happy.

As a DM, I don't know. My instinctual response is supported by many of the views in this thread. While it is possible to sleep in armour, there are more obstacles to the practice than I was aware of when this thread started. In a world of magic, I can think of various solutions, and if players wanted to describe themselves regularly cleaning their armour during short rests so they could sleep in it during long ones, that's probably fine.

But that brings us back to simulationism. I'm pretty sure I've not spoken in terms of what's "realistic" or whatever, but in terms of the rules that we've been given. Rules that distinguish between short and long rests (which I want to be mechanically meaningful in play), and rules for donning and doffing armour. If anything drives my solution, I'd suggest it's an interest in seeing the rules we've been given tested and put into play, so that we can see how they work.

I hope this helps clarify where I'm coming from, at least.

I consider sleeping in armor the same as I do standing up from being prone in armor.

Nobody talks about that, but I seriously think that anyone in 65 pound plate mail and 40 pounds of other gear is going to have a hard time standing up. But I wouldn't add in a game penalty for that.

In the real world, soldiers in their 20s carrying 70 to 90 pounds of gear start getting arthritis, bone spurs, spinal injuries, etc. So to me, wearing heavy armor and gear in the game world should present more of a penalty just for wearing it throughout the day, instead of for sleeping at night in it.

To me this is a game, so I don't bother with sleeping in armor penalties. It's less stress of a human body to sleep in armor than it is to actually walk around in it, and nobody penalizes that in the game.

 

[Starfox]

Archeology has found skeletal changes in the bone structure of archers from the 100 years war. That probably hurt like hell when they got old, but didn't hinder them at all in the field. Our body works like that - it can compensate RIGHT NOW but you pay down the line.

Happily, the post-career woes of our PCs are rarely played out.

 

[aramis erak]

I consider sleeping in armor the same as I do standing up from being prone in armor.

Nobody talks about that, but I seriously think that anyone in 65 pound plate mail and 40 pounds of other gear is going to have a hard time standing up. But I wouldn't add in a game penalty for that.

In the real world, soldiers in their 20s carrying 70 to 90 pounds of gear start getting arthritis, bone spurs, spinal injuries, etc. So to me, wearing heavy armor and gear in the game world should present more of a penalty just for wearing it throughout the day, instead of for sleeping at night in it.

To me this is a game, so I don't bother with sleeping in armor penalties. It's less stress of a human body to sleep in armor than it is to actually walk around in it, and nobody penalizes that in the game.

Note that 60 pounds of plate is much better distributed over the body than 65 pounds of modern soldier's gear.

The biggest arthritic issue is the helmet. Most medieval types probably didn't wear the helmet all the time unless it was fairly light, such as a skullcap. And the infamous bucket helms? They often actually ride on the shoulder. Jousting helms are entirely riding on the gorget, and thus the shoulder.

 

[MidrealmDM]

Do you impose any restrictions on sleeping in armor?

I've considered using the exhaustion table (but maybe capping it at level 1) and a con check but wanted to know how others handle it.

Houserule:
Wearing armor for extended periods can cause health problems (such as spinal compression, stress fractures, cleanliness issues, or even bedsores) - putting those in simplified game terms isn't easy or accurate, but here is what I use:

After each long rest with armor on, the DM can choose to require an Easy Constitution save (DC 10)
Failed save results in the wearer suffering disadvantage on all skill checks, attacks, and saving throws
and moving only at half speed until they complete a short rest.*

Light Armor
After 15 days without removing the armor, the character automatically suffers one level of exhaustion.

Medium Armor
After 10 days without removing the armor, the character automatically suffers one level of exhaustion.

Heavy Armor
After 5 days without removing the armor, the character automatically suffers one level of exhaustion.


* This is optional, and can bog the game down, I personally wouldn't use this unless time is important,
since the players can offset it by taking an extra hour of rest

=-=-=
As an optional rule you can cap the exhaustion at 1,2, or 3 levels of exhaustion to prevent the possibility
of 'death by wearing armor'
I personally cap it at 1

Edit:
I also allow those with Heavy armor to strip down to their 'underpadding' (a padding worn under the armor)
that will function the same as padded armor (AC 11+ Dex).
Or if they normally wear Plate, they can wear the breastplate only (AC 15 + Dex, max +2.)
This allows them a choice if they want to sleep in light or medium armor and gives them a choice of some armor over none.
It also gives them options when putting on armor in a hurry, choosing to stop after only donning a little protection.

 

[Ancalagon]

I've never slept in a gambeson... but I can tell you that as long as you open the collar and it's not too warm, it wouldn't be a problem at all.

(I can also tell you it has an AC of more than 11, but alas...)

 

[Oofta]

Holy Thread Necromancy Batman!

I've never understood why people feel the need to punish characters who wear armor. Dexterity based characters have enough advantages the way it is, to we have to pile on?

I've never personally slept in heavy armor, and people who say they have don't see an issue. Has anyone positing that there should be penalties tried to sleep in armor? The rules don't call for any, so do you have any justification for adding it?