Quote from: estar;1054143Have to say that is a stupid the perpetuate a misconception about sleeping in armor. Sleeping in well fitted armor (heavy, medium, or light) is no different than sleeping in bulky clothes and with time one gets used to it. What far more realistic is imposing disadvantage on any type of social check due to the BO after a few days of doing this.

Why didn't people always wear their armor then?

I take armor encumbrance and exhaustion rules as an abstraction of all the little reasons why people don't wear armor all the time.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1054198Why didn't people always wear their armor then?

Because regular clothes are more comfortable.

Look while playing LARPS for days at a time, nearly all the fighters types wore armor as much as they could include sleeping in it. However only a few, including myself, wore heavy armor all the time. Why? Not because it was uncomfortable because it was fatiguing over the long run. You slept fine but after running there, and running there, and a few combat encounters, you really start to think about what you carry on you. Yes you can manage it but if one could shed half the weight and only lose a quarter of the protection the choice of most was to do just that. Most long term players had very specific set of gear that they refined over years of playing.

You can read about this about newly formed armies and how you follow where they are going by all the stuff they shed along the way.

But this none of this was about being too tired or unsteady on one's feet. It was about personal comfort over the long haul. Which is a different line than "how long can I still fight effectively while carrying all this shit."

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1054198I take armor encumbrance and exhaustion rules as an abstraction of all the little reasons why people don't wear armor all the time.

I view it as various referee stemming back to earliest days of the hobby getting annoyed at PCs wearing armor all the time and coming up with a bullshit reason to penalize it.

If you asked me circa 1985 I would say said it made sense. But then would point out trying to managed it just comes across as nit picking. Even if enforced, the PCs would then contrive to way to maximize the time in armor to leave little room for vulnerability.

By the late 80s, my main system was GURPS and it ceased to be an issue as GURPS more realistically balanced the different trade offs for wearing armor. Players realistically tried to keep the amount of gear, including armor, as light as possible to minimize the penalties. The penalties resulted from weight alone not whether you wore armor specifically.

I came viewed the attitudes about back when I running AD&D was nit picking bullshit. So when I returned to using OD&D ten+ years ago. I don't bother with trying to penalize players for wearing armor. The only instance I will be concerned about if the circumstance involves some kind of social interaction where wearing armor wasn't appropriate.

Especially when a smart party can organized things so that it effectively doesn't matter and just become time wasting bookeeping chore. Which is why I prefer how GURPS does it with a single encumbrance penalty. Figure it out once and that is your consequence for carrying the armory shop on your back.

And keep in mind 5e already has armor details that penalize wearing heavy armor. No dex bonus, disadvantage on stealth, etc.

Okay so in a world where Prestidigitation exists as a cantrip (not sure if anyone has it) and with a Golden Dragonborn immune to the heat of the Jungles of Chult I really should be letting him sleep in his armor.  Especially given that he will be standing watch at some point during the night so doesn't make sense to take it off, put it on, take it off, and put it on again.

More realistic would be if they get into an extended chase or try to force march then he has disadvantage on the check or gains 2 levels instead of one on a failure.

Quote from: KingCheops;1054210Okay so in a world where Prestidigitation exists as a cantrip (not sure if anyone has it) and with a Golden Dragonborn immune to the heat of the Jungles of Chult I really should be letting him sleep in his armor.  Especially given that he will be standing watch at some point during the night so doesn't make sense to take it off, put it on, take it off, and put it on again.

More realistic would be if they get into an extended chase or try to force march then he has disadvantage on the check or gains 2 levels instead of one on a failure.

Exactly my attitude

Realistically, as Rob indicates, if people expect to be attacked while resting they are not going to take off their armour to rest. OTOH people who never ever take off their armour are going to have problems with rashes, infection etc - but in theory they could take it off for limited periods each day, change their undergarments, wash, and survive ok if not ecstatic.

For 5e  I use a 1 week long rest so I assume armour is removed at appropriate points during the week, if not I'd probably count the rest as incomplete. I don't equate a long rest with an overnight sleep.

If wearing armor makes you more tired, then you could say you need more rest... so not regaining hit points during a long rest fits, if you squint.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1054232If wearing armor makes you more tired, then you could say you need more rest... so not regaining hit points during a long rest fits, if you squint.

Already accounted for in the Lifting and Carrying rules on page 176. There is a variant if you want a  gritter game.

QuoteIf you carry weight in excess of 5 times your Strength score, you are encumbered, which means your speed drops by 10 fee!.

If you carry weighl in excess of 10 times your Slrenglh score, up to your maximum carrying capacity, you are instead heavily encumbered, which means your speed drops by 20 feet and you have disadvanlage on ability checks, attack rolls, and saving throws that use Strength, Dexterity, or Constitution.

WotC playtest session.

[video=youtube;3L6Do62dW9k]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3L6Do62dW9k[/youtube]

I find the mere nature of having hit points, two kinds of rests, exhaustion, etc. makes rulings not rules easier--and makes the rulings make more sense in the game world.  The effects of armor on rest are a great example.  I don't want some hard and fast rule on how armor affects rest, since that seems unnecessarily specific.  Namely, if armor is affecting it that strongly, then what about shelter, the quality of the food, the safety of the campsite, etc.  

I worked around that by manipulating the number of hit dice that are recovered in a long rest.  Out in the wild, with a good campsite, plenty of supplies, removing the armor, etc. a character can recovery half their level in hit dice.  In a safe spot, they can recover more, though not always full.  If conditions are poor, I just make a snap ruling on the proportion, and if really bad, set it at 1 or zero hit dice recovered.  I'm not entirely consistent in a nit picky way, but I am broadly consistent.  So I get the effect that I want, which is that players make meaningful decisions about what kind of supplies to take, whether to sleep in armor tonight or not, etc.  Many times, the players end up letting certain characters have a sheltered rest, while the rest of the party splits the watch and keeps their armor.  It's not realistic, but it does make the game seem more real to them, which is good enough for me.

I think if you look at only the rules-as-written in the main books, "rulings not rules" works fine.

The problem is these WoTC would-be superstars on Twitter answering all these idiots' questions about rules as if they had the final word.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1054644I think if you look at only the rules-as-written in the main books, "rulings not rules" works fine.

The problem is these WoTC would-be superstars on Twitter answering all these idiots' questions about rules as if they had the final word.

Not in my experience.  It's people taking those rulings as the final word, I've spoken to several of their CSRs, and they clarified a few things, but have always said it's my game, I do what I want with it.

I'm pretty sure that Crawford would say the same too.  "Do what you want at your own table."

The reason they try to make those rulings is because of Adventurer's League.  When you're going to have organized game play people are going to expect a fairly consistent gaming experience.  TTRPGs do NOT lend themselves to this apart from straight up tournament style dungeon/encounter crawls like the Delves.

Quote from: KingCheops;1054676I'm pretty sure that Crawford would say the same too.  "Do what you want at your own table."

The reason they try to make those rulings is because of Adventurer's League.  When you're going to have organized game play people are going to expect a fairly consistent gaming experience.  TTRPGs do NOT lend themselves to this apart from straight up tournament style dungeon/encounter crawls like the Delves.

While people certainly argue from what has been said by Crawford, I've never seen Adventurers League DMs hesitate to make their own rulings. Or myself hesitated to do the same as a DM. The AL FAQ seems to endorse this explicitly.

Quote from: rawma;1054827While people certainly argue from what has been said by Crawford, I've never seen Adventurers League DMs hesitate to make their own rulings. Or myself hesitated to do the same as a DM. The AL FAQ seems to endorse this explicitly.

Even Crawford has endorsed making your own rulings for AL.  It's the AL people who take his and others words as gospel.  So again, Pundit is wrong and his bias is showing.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1054833Even Crawford has endorsed making your own rulings for AL.  It's the AL people who take his and others words as gospel.  So again, Pundit is wrong and his bias is showing.

There are less rules lawyers among AL players and DMs than I remember in the OD&D days of the late 70s. I can think of other reasons why WOTC would want to respond to questions that ask for a ruling.