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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hejdun" data-source="post: 5049015" data-attributes="member: 839">This is one of those DM-Player social contract situations.  The DM has a certain vision as to how people behave in towns in his world.  He'd like to have the players play along with that vision.  In exchange for the PCs giving up a tactical advantage, the DM will guarantee that any combat taking place in town will have a difficulty level in line with the party's reduced tactical capacity.  So something like this (from the OP's quote) is striking the perfect tone IMO:The game rules have a certain expectation about PC stats.  For instance, player defenses have a pretty clear target number for a certain level and role.  A level 1 defender should have an AC or either 17 or 19 with a shield (give or take 1).  Wardens are typically lower by 1, but get more hit points than normal.  The various methods of getting defenses up that that target level vary: some just go for heavy armor, some give you light armor and make your secondary stat add to AC.In game terms, cracking down on heavy armor is an arbitrary disadvantage.  Why should the fighter be more disadvantaged than the warden?  There really is no rhyme or reason.  Combat is balanced around the assumption that the PCs have a certain defense.  Regularly disregarding those assumptions in an arbitrary way is not something I would advise.The in-game justification for this is that if it's so dangerous in town that you're regularly fighting combats, then it seems nonsensical that there's a social rule against weapons and armor.</blockquote>

Verification