Wearing armor and resting

[Storminator]

Mmm, sounds like a house rule. I guess in a real 'gritty' style of campaign it might be an interesting one. Generally that level of detail is a bit too much for most groups to bother with. Plus it would sure put a heavy premium on Endurance. The skill could possibly use a bit of a boost since it usually only ends up being handy in skill challenges or rare situations, but it would definitely be a mandatory for heavy armor people if it was the only safe way to get a night's sleep...

I don't think it was a house rule. I blame collective delusions, because all of us independently "remembered" this rule. It wasn't until this thread came up and I went looking for it that I realized it didn't exist. The DM was all set to let me go with my armor, but I figured since everyone else picked Endurance, they shouldn't be penalized when it came up. D'oh!

And lord knows I don't want to repeat that experience on a regular basis... but as a one time thing it added a lot of "excitement!"

PS

 

[NMcCoy]

RAW, there's no penalty for sleeping in armor; however, I really like the idea that sleeping in a bed, without armor, gives you an extra healing surge for the day, and provides a +2 on Endurance checks to shake off disease. Gives people a reason to stay at an inn.

It's a nice enough benefit that, all other things being equal, players would rather sleep in a bed than not (and the Wizard cares more about getting a good night's sleep than the Barbarian does, which I think is kinda neat). At the same time, it's not worth substantially backtracking for.

 

[Ryujin]

RAW, there's no penalty for sleeping in armor; however, I really like the idea that sleeping in a bed, without armor, gives you an extra healing surge for the day, and provides a +2 on Endurance checks to shake off disease. Gives people a reason to stay at an inn.

It's a nice enough benefit that, all other things being equal, players would rather sleep in a bed than not (and the Wizard cares more about getting a good night's sleep than the Barbarian does, which I think is kinda neat). At the same time, it's not worth substantially backtracking for.

You could rule that the benefits that characters would get from the Restful Bedroll in the Adventurer's Vault while on the trail, come naturally when you sleep in a proper bed, without armour. That would be 1d8 temporary hit points until your next short or long rest.

 

[Mad Hamish]

Honestly, if that's the way it's going to be from now on, I might insist on always sleeping in town since I was constantly worried that another "patrol" might come outside the Keep.

The additional problem is that right now we're only at level 2, so only about half the party even has magic armor. At higher levels though, when everyone is wearing stuff like +3 or higher, a significant portion of your AC is now coming from your enhancement bonus...something you don't get when not wearing your armor. So a level 30 PC in +6 Godplate? He'll be -20 AC for the encounter when out of his armor. That IS pretty much a scenario where the enemies will hit on anything other than a 1.

Which is why it's worth considering either having your main armour be summonable (or the enchantment that lets you change it to and from normal clothing) or have a backup set that is summonable and a point or two of enhancement bonus lower

 

[Mad Hamish]

Apparently I don't then. Let's try this angle; which of the two is HARDER, and by what order of magnitude?

With standard field armour it's rarely going to have a huge impact on what you can do.
It does (apparently) have a fair impact on how long you can do something for.

The only real case I have heard of men in armour having huge problems getting up was at Agincourt where the freshly plowed fields had been drenched by rain and "marching through the middle of the mud where they sank up to their knees. So they were already overcome with fatigue even before they advanced against the enemy".

Which is an extreme situation.
And in terms of weight here's the quote on the armour from wikipedia
"However they had to lower their visors and bend their heads to avoid being shot in the face (the eye and airholes in their helmets were some of the weakest points in the armour), which restricted both their breathing and their vision, and then they had to walk a few hundred yards through thick mud, wearing armour which weighed 50–60 pounds"

I'm hardly an expert. I've done my reading, seen the SCA folks whack each other about the head and shoulders, examined historic pieces in museums, etc.. My original comment of 70 lbs. weight should likely be more in the 70Kg range for an appropriate suit.

Not a chance in hell for a 70kg suit of armour for field gear.
_Maybe_ specialised jousting armour hit that weight at times but that's really like comparing a formula 1 car with a standard street car.

 

[Doctor Proctor]

Which is why it's worth considering either having your main armour be summonable (or the enchantment that lets you change it to and from normal clothing) or have a backup set that is summonable and a point or two of enhancement bonus lower

The problem with that though is that you're placing an extra burden on non-DEX/INT classes. The Wizard in Leather will only lose a couple points of AC, whereas I'm losing 8. He doesn't really need a backup set of armor, or a summonable set, which frees him up to have more useful enchantments.

It creates a fundamental imbalance in the game to require removing armor during an extended rest. Even if you drop the level of the encounter you'll end up with an imbalance. If they're low enough to hit the non-DEX/INT classes 50% of the time, then they'll only hit the DEX/INT classes 25% of the time or less. If they're high enough to hit the DEX/INT classes 50% of the time, then they'll probably hit the non-DEX/INT classes at least 75% of the time, if not more.

Once you remove this idea though, all of a sudden everything makes sense again and classes even out like normal. Your high AC guys maintain their high AC, while your high DEX/INT guys will most likely be slightly behind them. You can still set up instances where they'll be "surprised" and you'll get a free round of attacks, or perhaps not have a chance to equip shields/weapons/implements and thus have to waste actions to do so.

The fact is though, if the PC's are taking an extended rest it's probably because they're low on resources...whether that means dailies, surges, or both, it doesn't matter. They're usually functioning at a less than optimal level, and so suddenly springing an encounter on them is already punishment enough. Adding in a rule that relegates all of your frontliners to practically naked oafs that a blind guy could hit just adds insult to injury.

 

[El Mahdi]

If you want to encourage players to rest without their armor, instead of applying a penalty if they don't.. Why not give a small "well rested" bonus if they do take off the armor? ie. Instead of losing a healing surge if you sleep in armor, why not gain a healing surge if you don't sleep in armor?

It seems like more fun to have the chance at a bonus for the risk of being caught with your pants down than it would be to have a penalty for not taking off your pants so people can kick you.

However, we can encourage them to remove their armor by say, giving them an extra HS if they decided to sleep without armor after an extended rest?

You'd just have to make sure everyone gets the bonus, whether they normally wear armor or not. If you don't, you've made a defacto penalty for classes or characters that don't wear armor.

 

[Doctor Proctor]

You'd just have to make sure everyone gets the bonus, whether they normally wear armor or not. If you don't, you've made a defacto penalty for classes or characters that don't wear armor.

True, you'd just end up with the same imbalance, but in reverse.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

No, I don't think that's a misconception. Tournie armor had all sorts of extras built into it, like a lance rest and sometimes even a mount for a shield. They were, as you pointed out, to ensure that there was no possibility of damage to the jouster. They didn't want to see someone die because of a accident, it was all just supposed to be fun.

That was not combat armor though. So yes, I think you're right that perhaps people looked at the tournie armor and assumed that all armor functioned like that, and thus perpetuated this myth.

(Note: This was a myth that I subscribed to until recently. Also, there is the myth of the swords being MUCH heavier than they actually are... In truth, the technology and artistry put in some of the medieval arms is truly astounding.)

Yeah, I would say it is likely. Popular modern conceptions of what armor was like are certainly a bit distorted for whatever reason. Oddly the PHB armor weights aren't all that bad, though I would take issue with their overall classifications of armor in some other respects. Still, it is a game and it is at least not so far off from reality that it matters.

As for weapon stats. 4e's weapons are certainly in the realm of total fantasy! Their weight numbers are too high by at least 100% in most cases, maybe a bit less than that for some of the swords, but a longsword or a mace wouldn't have exceeded 2.5-3 lbs at most. 12lb weapons are simply preposterous. Even if you COULD swing them you would actually hit with less kinetic energy than with a lighter weapon simply because it would be impossible to get the weapon up to speed within the arc of a swing. Not to mention even a superb athlete couldn't possibly swing the weapon more than a couple of times before his arms were spent. Plus it would be utterly useless in terms of defense. Still, it doesn't matter much in terms of affecting the game. I just take any of those numbers with a large dose of salt.

 

[Lord Ernie]

I'm not sure (I don't remember any statement on the matter), but I'm guessing the rule was purposely removed. Using encounters that catch armor users with their pants down (almost literally), only punishes those that need armor to keep their AC up. What's more, those are most often the classes that see a lot of melee combat. It's possible to adapt your encounter in such a way that they won't miss their armor (level appropriate penalty to attack vs. unarmored targets; AC bonus based on level; etc.), but then, what's the point?

When I want to get the PC's in more or less the same feeling as being attacked whiile sleeping, I'll give them just enough warning of an incoming attack that they have time to alarm everyone, wake up, and get suited up. That way, whoever was on guard can feel good about himself, too.