Two rules I want to verify...
1. Sleeping in armor gives you a level of exhaustion, correct? Does it matter if its light, medium or heavy?
2. Medicine checks for stabilization, do I have to roll a 10 with modifiers to stabilize an ally? I couldnt find this anywhere in the book and we just assumed 10 was the number to hit.
2. DC 10 (player basics, p.76)
In response to my first question, why would you ever take your armor off then?
bdubgnarkill wrote:
bdubgnarkill wrote:
Which means that dex based character's ACs are unrealistically high.
In TV/movies people dodge out of the way of all sorts of things no human could possibly dodge.
That's ok, it's part of the fun of the game. But it also means that if you penalize characters in armor because it's "more realistic" the optimal builds will always be dex based for those that care about AC.
So to me, it's a question of balance. I don't penalize characters in armor because dex is already overly powerful in the game.
bdubgnarkill wrote:
Outside of some kind of sense of versimilitude, there's only one reason to incentivize players to remove armor while sleeping (or disincentivizing leaving it on, as the case may be): Catching them without their armored pants down when there's a wandering monster encounter during sleeping hours. If that's really your only goal, then consider it's not all that great of a goal in the first place and don't worry about it. You can probably achieve the same effect by hitting armored characters with spells or other effects that call for (chiefly Dexterity) saving throws.
Usually when my group enforces realism concerning sleeping in armour we also have a gentlemans agreement that nightly attacks shouldnt primarily target AC but other defenses instead. That way the usually tough platemail fighter doesnt have to hide behind the agile monk, but can still be macho against the ghosts or whatever.
In 5ed though many attacks have been simplified to just target AC mostly so now its a bit harder (even ghosts main attack is against AC)
If you still want to enforce a level of realism concerning armour, dont screw over the armour reliant players too much. Screw over everyone about equally
ie silence to thwart the casters and spells that target mostly other things than AC.. or just have the badguys set the inn on fire, then it doesnt matter if you are wearing plate or not I guess.
I have no problem allowing my players to sleep in their armor. D&D is not an easy game. I'd rather not impair their ability to survive in a dangerous world by taking away the usefulness of their armor. I'd rather their demise come from poor decision making in the midst of combat. 
By various historical accounts, sleeping in armor is no big deal when compared with simply sleeping on the road. In fact I've seen at least one account from a reenactor that sleeping in platemail is more comfortable that simply sleeping on bare ground.
So if you're not going to go into detail on bathing, going to the toilet, armor maintainence etc etc, you probably shouldn't bother with trying to make your players take it off.
There are many things that would be realistic but aren't fun to keep track of or play out every single time, so sometimes it's just better to ignore these things.
In response to my first question, why would you ever take your armor off then?
Saeviomagy wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
My half-orc fighter is way tougher than I am, so I don't think she'd have any trouble sleeping in armor. Heck, a soft mattress and silk pajamas might give her insomnia.
An unarmored fight could be an interesting change to a game as long as the DM adjusts the fight acordingly. If the DM wants to have exhaustion rules for sleeping in armor I hope he's not punishing the players who get caught unarmored.
I've recently had an adventure start as the players were in their peacful home town walking from the inn to their manor. No one complained when I said they were not carrying their backpacks with all their adventuring gear. The paladin was also the town blacksmith who had stopped by the inn after working at the forge, and she did not mind that she was not carrying a shield or wearing armor. The adventure had them trapped underground and needing to survive till they find an exit. I knew that the paladin was going to need armor so the first room had a shield in it and a nearby trophy room gave her her first suit of platemail that happened to fit just right.
In the past I've also played with a player who insisted that he always slept in his armor with all his magic gear on him even when he was in his own castle sleeping next to his wife. Players tend to be a paranoid lot who like to wear everything to bed and all sleep in the same room at an inn 'just in case'.
MrHotter wrote:
There are no specific rules on it because it is not worth a rule. it is not a thing that should really come up. Maybe in a few cases you might be attacked at night while vulnerable, but if that is happening it is highly unlikely that it is an attack meant to actually kill and more likely a device to progress the story. It is the same reason there are no rules about what happens if your character does not bath regularly or wash thier clothes. It not something that really needs it. Furthermore, there is an expectation that your characters are not going to act like someone who knows they are in a game.
Kangodo wrote:
I'll let a character sleep in their armor, but they wouldn't benefit from a long rest. Your sleep just wouldn't be restful enough to let you recover spells/hit dice/etc.
Dwarfslayer wrote:
Previous editions of the game had rules about penalties for sleeping in Medium or Heavy armor, sure. The 5E developers were familiar with those rules - and deliberately chose to remove them for 5E. This edition is supposed to be simpler and streamlined compared to the older rules. If a DM wants to add those rules back in as House Rules, well, that's up to the DM. But the intention in 5E was not to bother with that sort of thing.
If the DM wants to "punish" (ie be a jerk to) players who use armor (or anything with metal in it), he doesn't need to wait for them to go to sleep. Rust monsters exist. So does any situation wher wearing armor will actively hamper your goals, like meeting nobility etc. Sleeping in it is both a thing that should not be a common occurance or a thing that should matter the vast majority of the time.
Ghost_Gallus wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
As with any house rule, it's really important to consider what the goal of the house rule is, whether it's worthwhile to even pursue that goal, whether the house rule actually help achieve that goal, what effects the house rule has on play, and whether it's fun.
As I noted upthread, typically, the house rule is because of versimilitude concerns and/or the DM wanting to periodically challenge the PCs with encounters when the characters have their armored pants down. So does assigning exhaustion (or the like) to characters sleeping in armor help with those concerns? Is it worthwhile to pursue these goals in the first place? Does the house rule achieve the goals of versimilitude and increased difficulty for challenges? What likely effects will it have in play e.g. players leaning more toward Dex-based characters, preparing lots of early-warning defenses against nighttime attacks, etc.? Is that going to be fun?
Each DM and table will have to answer these questions for themselves.
I didn't say having PCs interact with the environment sensibly was the DM being a jerk. Reading what people actually write is important. Go figure.