Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kobold Stew" data-source="post: 6356544" data-attributes="member: 23484">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.</blockquote>

Verification