Wearing armor and resting

[ArmoredSaint]

The guy in that armour in the video seems to be only wearing very light plates that wouldn't protect against much.

I was under the impression that the type of heavy plate-mail armours worn by knights of the type we model in D&D were of a much thicker metal. Not only that but a full suit included a chain hauberk over a padded armour vest as well as padded leggings and chain between the joints.

That type of armour would be a helluva lot stiffer, heavier and more uncomfortable to move in than what the guy in the video was wearing. If I was the DM and shown that video I'd put that armour down as ceremonial and the equivalent of hide, not even as good as chain since it covers none of the joints, has no padding to absorb blows, and looks about as sturdy as tinfoil.

Seriously? My suit looks like tinfoil to you? Do you think I'm lying when I stated that it weighs 71 pounds?

Joshua A Warren's Photos | Facebook
Joshua A Warren's Photos | Facebook
Joshua A Warren's Photos | Facebook
Joshua A Warren's Photos | Facebook

Note that I do, in fact, have mail covering the joints of my armour.

Two posts above yours, Kzach, I addressed this very issue: people thinking my armour in that video is somehow "not real." I'm sorry, but your expectations are a little bit off, and (no offense) are probably colored by exposure to either Victorian-era myth or modern fantasy art that features armour with unrealistically thick metal and huge shoulder plates.

"Light plates that wouldn't protect against much?" Just how thick do you think real historical armour was?

Allen Antiques Catalog

This is a link to a site of the private arms and armour collection of Mr. Wade Allen. Mr. Allen was kind enough to take thickness measurements on several of the pieces in his collection. For comparison, my own breastplate is about 3.5mm thick through the thickest point at the center.

For further reference, I submit this page from Dr. Alan Williams' The Knight and the Blast Furnace, which book gives a very thorough treatment of the subject of armour thickness:

The Knight and the Blast Furnace: A ... - Google Book Search

Note that, my breastplate's thickness of 3.5mm places it on the heavy end for thicknesses during the 15th century, and still in the average category for the entire period considered.

I hope that puts to rest the issue of whether or not the armour in the YouTube video is "real." It is indeed real in that it is a suit of articulated steel plates, made roughly the same style, thickness, and weight of an actual late medieval/early Renaissance armour. It is not "tinfoil." It is not a stage costume armour. It is not "ceremonial." It is not lighter than the historical artifact it was made to resemble--in fact, at 71 pounds, my armour is much heavier than the 51.48 pounds listed for the original in the Mantova catalogue.

It is real armour, and I can turn cartwheels in it. Why is that so hard for some people to accept? Conditioning from too much modern fatnasy art, I guess...

I politely and respectfully submit that anyone who thinks it's not real armour doesn't know what real armour looks like. There is no reason to assume that the plate armour represented in Dungeons & Dragons is any thicker than either mine or historical examples either--especially when the Players' Handbook lists the weight of a suit of plate armour at 50 lbs. on page 214.

So you are incorrect, Kzach, in believing that the armour we model in D&D is made of thicker plates. You imgagine something more like this, maybe?

http://ordo-daemonica.com/shieldbreaker/Pictures/ChaosWarrior.jpg

 

[Kzach]

So you're wearing the chain and the padding when doing cartwheels? 'cause in that video I can't see any chainmail on you or the joints, or any padded armour. Looks like just the plates on some clothing.

 

[Ryujin]

Oh man, I was terrified that you were going to take me up on the "your mom" joke I left myself open to.

I have a policy to never go for the easy joke. It's like shooting ducks on the ground

 

[CapnZapp]

Greetings all! My first post here after months of lurking.

I'm trying to wrap my brain against wearing armor and resting. I can't find any rule in 4th ed that stipulates that in order to take an extended rest, a PC should remove their armor. Is there any rule regarding wearing armor and resting (there was in 3.5 ed)? After combing through the PHB 4th ed, I couldn't find anything.

That is because there is no such rule.

In fact, D&D is a game where you would be dead in the water if you're caught unprotected by your armor (especially heavy armor users, the ones we're concerned about).

So it doesn't make you remove your armor as that would be un-fun.

You don't need the previous tiresome "realism" discussion for this. Just accept that the game's mechanics make fighting out of armor a bad idea, and thus forcing your PCs out of their armor an equally bad idea.

 

[DGG]

Wow.

I didn't expect my question to spring a huge debate.

FYI. I was asked the question last game right before my players had to rest "Do we have to take off our armor to rest properly?". I answered, "according to the rules, no." Game went on and no one said anything.

While I like fantasy games to have some basis on reality, I have to bear in mind that it is fantasy and I don't like introducting house rules to a system that isn't broken, especially when all that rule does is penalize the player.

Considering the DnD setting, arguing that someone can do aerobics in full field plate armor is just as ridiculous as arguing that a chainmail bikini can provide the lady fighter with ample protection.

 

[CapnZapp]

There is (as has been said already) a rule saying you need a short rest (or 5 minutes) to don armor.

To be constructive (even though this isn't the house rule forum):

If you really want to have characters out of armor once in a while, consider reducing this time to something much much shorter (perhaps two move actions).

Another suggestion is to make all armor (at least all magic armor) have the Summoned property (see Summoned Armor, Adventurer's Vault page 53) in addition to any other property - just like all 4E magical thrown weapons have the property they return in your hand (a property called called "Throwing" or "Returning" in previous editions, where it didn't come for free) in addition to whatever other powers they might have.

 

[CapnZapp]

Considering the DnD setting, arguing that someone can do aerobics in full field plate armor is just as ridiculous as arguing that a chainmail bikini can provide the lady fighter with ample protection.

Considering the DnD setting, I take this to mean "not ridiculous at all"...

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I gotta through my 2 cents in for ArmoredSaint. Having handled one or two pieces of period armor and weapons. Sounds like he knows a good bit more about it than I do, but the late medieval armor I saw was on the order of a couple millimeters thick and these suites are all known to weigh around 50-70 lbs.

Typically a suite of plate armour would be worn over an arming doublet, which was a padded/quilted cloth material designed to keep the armor from cutting into you and provide cushioning if you got hit. It wouldn't be much different in weight from a quilted jacket and heavy pants.

As for chainmail under the armor. Not really. There would be a coif and a few areas like under arms and such would be covered, there wouldn't be a full suite of chainmail under it.

It is QUITE true however that armor evolved tremendously. Before the 11th century there certainly was no such thing as plate armor. At best the most elite warriors in the most advanced nations had full suites of chainmail with chest plates etc of solid metal, and that would only have been say Byzantine cataphracts, nobody in Western Europe had that kind of thing at all at that time. Most knights of that period would have been lucky to have chainmail at all and most wore some kind of brigandine.

Armor in Europe gradually and steadily improved from there. But it wasn't until the later part of the 15th century that you had something like ArmoredSaint's sort of full plate. Even then only the very wealthiest nobles could afford it. The fancy early rennaisance Italian and German armors you normally see were also pretty much show pieces or used only in tournaments. In battle and for the less well off there were more practical and usually less entirely complete field armor. A typical knight in 1400 would have most likely still been wearing reinforced chain mail.

Another source of confusion that people have is looking at post-medieval 16th and 17th century armor. This stuff was made to stop bullets and was much heavier than the earlier sorts. To make up for that they did away with heavy protection for the limbs etc, which was less needed anyway if you were fighting at range. So it is deceiving to extrapolate full plate armor from the breastplate that a conquistador would be wearing.

D&D's notions of weapon and armor terminologies and some of their ancillary info are pretty questionable from a historical point of view, but they did get some facts straight!

 

[Mengu]

If sleeping in wilderness, I can see wearing armor, but for sleeping at an inn or an establishment, the characters probably would not be in armor of any kind. No one can convince me it's comfortable to sleep in your bed with full plate, gauntlets, boots, and a helmet on a hot and humid summer night.

If there is going to be a fight where the PC's can't/won't be in armor or gear, I'd probably make some ad hoc ruling for an AC increase, like instead of Dex or Int, I could allow them to use their highest stat for AC and add a +1 to their AC for every 5 levels. So a 10th level fighter with 20 Strength would have AC 22 (maybe 23 or 24 wielding a chair as a shield), which would only be 2 or 3 points lower than their regular AC (maybe 4 if they upgraded to plate). Regardless, this will still be sufficient for them to do their job, at a bit of a disadvantage, but such is the life of an adventurer.

 

[DGG]

There is (as has been said already) a rule saying you need a short rest (or 5 minutes) to don armor.

Actually it says : "Putting on a suit of armor always takes at least 5 minutes, which means that it’s an activity you can undertake only outside combat (likely while you’re taking a short rest)." PHB pg212

It never says you actually NEED to rest to put on/take off armor neither does it state anywhere that armor is a hinderence to resting. In 3rd Ed it was an issue but it isn't here in 4th ed. Whether this was an oversight or it was purposely removed, I don't know. Hence why I brought the question up.