PDA

View Full Version : Characters Attire and General Comfort



Thorin Ironfist
2016-12-01, 03:04 PM
So everyone knows that rangers and rogues and the like tend to wear cloaks over their leather armor. However, is it common practice for all adventurers to carry a light fabric cloak to wear over their armor or clothing just to keep it either concealed or clean? I would think that it would draw a significant amount of attention if a party of 5 strode up to your home town, brandishing massive shiny armor, large weapons, bows, maces, and a belt of heads.

Wouldn't it make sense for everyone, including commoners and soldiers, to carry a large cloak with a hood so that they:
A. don't scare all of the common people and town guard
B. are able to keep their armor clean and rust free in rainstorms
C. keep their under-cloths dry and warm

If I were not out to pillage a city and incite fear in the cute elf girl beside me at the tavern, I'd cover up my armor and leave my larger weapons at the door.

Yeah, there's always that one guy who walks with a strut that says "hail to the king, baby" and flashes his impractically heavy polished gold, copper, and steel armor, then sits down and drops his over-sized bastard sword on the table.

mithrawnudo
2016-12-01, 03:25 PM
Adventuring gear, backpack, cloak, basic tunic and boots, are what most adventurers are assumed to be wearing OR light armor. Most gamebooks point out it is tiring and impractical to wear medium or heavy armor all the time.

So yes, most adventurers would be wearing fairly nondescript clothes, but leave weapons are hard to hide.

As far as soldiers go, it depends on what they are doing. A soldier on patrol would be in armor and brandishing weapons. A soldier on march would have armor on and weapons worn.

J-H
2016-12-01, 05:48 PM
A soldier on march is going to have his main armor (plate, breastplate, etc) off and either carried on his back or being hauled around by one of the slaves/servants.

If it's rainy, it will get wet under that armor no matter your best efforts, and it'll stay wet and icky. If it's sunny and hot, the armor will get hot like an oven. If it's humid, you'll be soggy and overheated and unable to sweat. If it's freezing, you're walking around wearing 35# of freezing metal on your body.

Full armor goes on for battle. Everyone who's not a superhuman lunatic or equipped with magically comfortable gear is wearing a mail surcoat or padded underlayers the rest of the time.

Pick a time period and geographic region, and look at what the natives wear/wore; modify as necessary for species differences (heat affinity, skin tone, body type, hair, etc). Roman togas, the big conical Chinese hats (sun protection), traditional Arab dress (lightweight, loose, full coverage), etc.

Knaight
2016-12-01, 07:18 PM
This is all incredibly setting dependent. Take the matter of armor - whether or not it needs to be concealed depends on the particular social situation of a town, with some places likely frowning on it being there at all, the potential for some not caring, and the potential for some having a much bigger problem with concealed armor than open or vice versa. What goes over it then has both cultural considerations and concerns for things like rainfall, temperature, and wind. A cold and rainy swamp that hovers at 90-95% humidity is going to cause people to dress differently than a hot desert.

Stealth Marmot
2016-12-01, 08:29 PM
Generally players are not going to leave their character unarmored for their comfort because they live in a universe with a sadistic and petty omnipotent being who gets joy out of ambushes in the middle of the city or while they are sitting around at the campfire.

Any attempt to explain to your players that it will be uncomfortable will only result in their rather rightful paranoia acting up and them being sure that you will in fact have them attacked the moment they have their armor off because you hate them and want them to feel stupid.

That said, since the game has mechanical issues with people wearing armor while they sleep, they will have to take it off then. What's more, you have to realize that this is a fantasy world where fantastic metals, techniques, styles, and magic exist. Any armor an adventurer would buy and wear is meant to be worn by an adventurer, who is constantly meant to be ready for battle. As such, the armor is most likely designed with the idea of it being extra flexible and comfortable over it having perfect protection.

There is also a more England-centric problem when armor is considered. If you look at Samurai armor designs and some of the Roman armor designs during the Roman empire, you notice a greater range of flexibility and less weight overall. In fact, looking it up, it appears Romans would march in their armor over long distances. After all, you're carrying the armor anyway, isn't it better to have it evenly distributed over your body instead of slung in a heavy pack awkwardly? Samurai armor was built to be both flexible and not too heavy to wear the user down, since speed was an issue. Historically speaking, there are armor types designed to be worn over long distances and meant to be comfortable when worn for longer periods of time.

Anyway, the character would probably clean their armor during down time like when people are sleeping in shifts. No need to detail that or the time they take to patch up holes in it. I mean if you have armor proficiency no doubt you know how to take care of it. Plus I guarantee magical armor being immune to normal environmental wear and tear is built into the magic of turning it +1.

English Knights would get geared up for battle certainly, but that was only the ones that were heavily armored and got on horses, so it was more like assembling a siege weapon than outfitting a guy.

Basically, stop trying to tie down fantasy armor by the names and their real life named counterpart. Plate armor in D&D is not like plate armor from our history. It's fantasy plate, not medieval plate. What's more, it is not just fantasy plate, but fantasy ADVENTURER plate that probably is built to go places and be worn for a long time and be as flexible as possible, and not get damaged or rust as bad from rotting, rain, or get infested with pests.

What makes an acceptable break from supposed "reality" is when you ask these questions:

Does it avoid breaking reasonable verisimilitude for MOST participants?

Does it serve a purpose? (Such as simplification of play, balance of characters, or prevention of tedium)

Does it add more than it takes away?

If you answer yes to all three of these questions, congratulations you have an acceptable break from reality for your game.

In this case however, it doesn't break as far from reality as some people think it does. Some people just prefer the pedantic.

Edit: I'm going to have a second part relating more towards the appearance of armor. Adventurers in most settings are not incredibly uncommon. They are likely seen often enough, especially in larger cities. Yes it is true that these are a band of heavily armed mercenaries walking into the middle of town looking ready to kill everyone in the room if it comes to it, but since it is not uncommon and in most cases even a hardcore guy can be taken down by a dozen or so city guards. Most people know that an adventuring group is probably not going to cause serious trouble in the town because it would just be a pain for everyone involved.

Keep in mind that being armed does not necessarily describe intent to start killing everyone around you. In frontier cities, it can be a lot like the old west where people would wear pistols or carry shotguns around and no one made a fuss because they had reasons for it often enough. Hell, if you go to rural cities in the US people will walk around carrying guns and no one will raise any alarm. In a world like D&D where bounty hunters and adventurers are common enough, there is no reason they would be stared at for carrying a blade.

That said, there are certain classes and races that will make the townsfolk worried or turn their heads. Elves might not be too common and people might have a fascination. Halflings or other small races might be treated a bit too child-like. Dwarves might be avoided for fear of them being rude or gruff. Half-orcs might be mistrusted or even bullied. In most cases this will be minor and just for flavor if anything.

When you get to Half Dragon minotaurs, then people might start running to the sheriff on sight.

Classes certainly play into this as well. Wizards and sorcerers might be treated with mistrust in more superstitious areas, Druids and Rangers might be avoided since they might be a little too natural to be in a city, or seen as heathens. Clerics and paladins on the other hand might be a welcomed sight in the city, since "Hi there easy healing and righteous blessings and good trustworthy deeds." Bards literally make a living off of making themselves feel welcome. Everyone else will probably blend in just fine unless they start something, though pickpockets might say "Nnnnnnot worth it when the guy has a 5 foot sword."

Really, how the town reacts is primarily up to the players. Any class can tone down how they look to not bring too much attention, or they can polish their armor up to make a scene because they want to gather people around with beer and brag about how awesome they are.

Part and parcel of player personality.

(Huh. Accidental Alliteration)

Khedrac
2016-12-02, 03:37 AM
A soldier on march is going to have his main armor (plate, breastplate, etc) off and either carried on his back or being hauled around by one of the slaves/servants.
That so depends. For one thing, the easiest way to carry armour is often to wear it (especially mail).

There's an account from one of the crusades that the English marching through other lands on their way to the holy land were being "attacked" by the locals. The locals were light archers (horse I think - away from books) and were peppering the English lines in an attempt to get them to break ranks and chase them.
The English foot were not bothering to pull the arrows out of their gear when they got hit (their armour was sufficient to block all the arrows at the range involved).

So, yes knights might well not wear full armour while travelling, and similarly ancient armies where each soldier did have servants/slaves might make them carry it, but your basic peasant footsoldier would wear his armour (quite possibly as a way of preventing it from being stolen) and I strongly suspect that a roman legionnaire would do the same.
Anyone travelling in unsafe territory not wearing their amour would be expected not to arrive.

Hawkstar
2016-12-02, 04:22 AM
A soldier on march is going to have his main armor (plate, breastplate, etc) off and either carried on his back or being hauled around by one of the slaves/servants.

If it's rainy, it will get wet under that armor no matter your best efforts, and it'll stay wet and icky. If it's sunny and hot, the armor will get hot like an oven. If it's humid, you'll be soggy and overheated and unable to sweat. If it's freezing, you're walking around wearing 35# of freezing metal on your body.

Full armor goes on for battle. Everyone who's not a superhuman lunatic or equipped with magically comfortable gear is wearing a mail surcoat or padded underlayers the rest of the time.

Pick a time period and geographic region, and look at what the natives wear/wore; modify as necessary for species differences (heat affinity, skin tone, body type, hair, etc). Roman togas, the big conical Chinese hats (sun protection), traditional Arab dress (lightweight, loose, full coverage), etc.

The only Romans who wore Togas were the Senators who thought they looked fancy, and decided they were too important to wear anything practical. Instead, Romans wore tunics. Roman Soldiers wore banded/scaled metal tunics - and as long as they were on duty, they were wearing that armor.

NOBODY "Carried their armor instead of wearing it." Either they were wearing it, or something else (not them) was carrying it.


So everyone knows that rangers and rogues and the like tend to wear cloaks over their leather armor. However, is it common practice for all adventurers to carry a light fabric cloak to wear over their armor or clothing just to keep it either concealed or clean? I would think that it would draw a significant amount of attention if a party of 5 strode up to your home town, brandishing massive shiny armor, large weapons, bows, maces, and a belt of heads.A party of 5 cloaked strangers riding up is also suspicious. At least this sort of party, given its small size and brazen approach says "We're Heroes to Help", not "We're conquerors!"


Wouldn't it make sense for everyone, including commoners and soldiers, to carry a large cloak with a hood so that they:
A. don't scare all of the common people and town guardCommoners and assassins would. Adventurers and Soldiers wouldn't. Soldiers wearing the Local Military Uniform are trusted by the locals, not feared. Adventurers of any color aren't 'People here to murder everyone', but 'people here to murder all our problems away". Why would an adventurer want to cover up his or her advertisements?


B. are able to keep their armor clean and rust free in rainstorms Cloth won't stop the rain from soaking through. Either oil, or weatherproofed metal is used.


C. keep their under-cloths dry and warmOverlapping, interlocking plates work wonders for keeping the rain away.


If I were not out to pillage a city and incite fear in the cute elf girl beside me at the tavern, I'd cover up my armor and leave my larger weapons at the door.If you leave your larger weapons at the door, a thief'll have it stolen and fenced before you even saw it was missing. And people trust overly-concealed strangers far less than brazenly adorned warriors.


Yeah, there's always that one guy who walks with a strut that says "hail to the king, baby" and flashes his impractically heavy polished gold, copper, and steel armor, then sits down and drops his over-sized bastard sword on the table.And he's the one the common folk get along best with.

Thorin Ironfist
2016-12-02, 10:32 AM
A party of 5 cloaked strangers riding up is also suspicious. At least this sort of party, given its small size and brazen approach says "We're Heroes to Help", not "We're conquerors!"

Commoners and assassins would. Adventurers and Soldiers wouldn't. Soldiers wearing the Local Military Uniform are trusted by the locals, not feared. Adventurers of any color aren't 'People here to murder everyone', but 'people here to murder all our problems away". Why would an adventurer want to cover up his or her advertisements?


But what visible differences are there between a small band of well armor bandits and an adventuring party? Several men wearing bullet proof vests and flak jackets carrying assault rifles walk into a train station. Are they terrorists or a private military? The point is that unless the adventurers have some guild they belong to or have some sort of identifying mark that says "I'm not here to kill you," nobody will know that aren't just pillaging maniacs.

Mastikator
2016-12-02, 11:24 AM
That so depends. For one thing, the easiest way to carry armour is often to wear it (especially mail).

There's an account from one of the crusades that the English marching through other lands on their way to the holy land were being "attacked" by the locals. The locals were light archers (horse I think - away from books) and were peppering the English lines in an attempt to get them to break ranks and chase them.
The English foot were not bothering to pull the arrows out of their gear when they got hit (their armour was sufficient to block all the arrows at the range involved).

So, yes knights might well not wear full armour while travelling, and similarly ancient armies where each soldier did have servants/slaves might make them carry it, but your basic peasant footsoldier would wear his armour (quite possibly as a way of preventing it from being stolen) and I strongly suspect that a roman legionnaire would do the same.
Anyone travelling in unsafe territory not wearing their amour would be expected not to arrive.

That really depends on the armor though, an early renaissance plate armor (https://i.imgur.com/FpGcFnQ.jpg) is a lot less practical (and a LOT more defensible) than a roman legionary armor (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a6/Roman_soldier_in_lorica_segmentata_1-cropped.jpg/220px-Roman_soldier_in_lorica_segmentata_1-cropped.jpg). I can easily imagine that the latter is more often worn simply because it's not in the way. The former is an absolute beast of an armor and you're close to invincible in it, but damn would that get tiresome.

VoxRationis
2016-12-02, 11:46 AM
...

Basically, stop trying to tie down fantasy armor by the names and their real life named counterpart. Plate armor in D&D is not like plate armor from our history. It's fantasy plate, not medieval plate. What's more, it is not just fantasy plate, but fantasy ADVENTURER plate that probably is built to go places and be worn for a long time and be as flexible as possible, and not get damaged or rust as bad from rotting, rain, or get infested with pests.

...

Keep in mind that being armed does not necessarily describe intent to start killing everyone around you. In frontier cities, it can be a lot like the old west where people would wear pistols or carry shotguns around and no one made a fuss because they had reasons for it often enough. Hell, if you go to rural cities in the US people will walk around carrying guns and no one will raise any alarm. In a world like D&D where bounty hunters and adventurers are common enough, there is no reason they would be stared at for carrying a blade.

Funny how "fantasy adventurer plate" is described as looking like regular plate and is similarly protective, and judging by a lot of fantasy art, is even more heavy and cumbersome to move in, yet apparently is fine for walking hundreds of miles in.

That said, I agree with several of your points. Knights don't have their armor on constantly because they can usually predict when they'll need it. They'll keep comfortable most of the time and put it on before the battle starts. Adventurers, by contrast, get attacked everywhere. They don't have the luxury of saying "Oh, we're in a town, we'll probably be fine if we remove our armor," because in all likelihood they'll get attacked in the town. Unfortunately, D&D in particular, but probably a lot of other fantasy/historical RPGs as well, make armor a crucial part of the combat mechanics. A fight assumes that the characters who can wear armor are wearing armor. There's often no good way for a regular fighter-type to avoid being stabbed without it. So a PC will therefore have their defenses up constantly, because they can't function without them and can't count on not needing them.

What's more, in many social contexts, it's not that call-the-guards-worthy for armed strangers to wander into town. If the world is reasonably consistent, those random monster encounters that plagued the adventurers on their way into town also plague messengers, merchants, farmers, pilgrims, and similar travelers. People know the world is dangerous and that you therefore need armor and weapons.

Deophaun
2016-12-02, 12:08 PM
A party of 5 cloaked strangers riding up is also suspicious.
Only because they're strangers, not because they're wearing a common piece of kit everyone else is also wearing.


Cloth won't stop the rain from soaking through. Either oil, or weatherproofed metal is used.
Wool cloaks will, as experienced by Lindybeige (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yN8cYd3poIk).


But what visible differences are there between a small band of well armor bandits and an adventuring party? Several men wearing bullet proof vests and flak jackets carrying assault rifles walk into a train station. Are they terrorists or a private military?
Obviously military. They're walking while carrying weapons in the open only legally allowed to the military in the Western world (or very, very expensive pre-FOPA grandfathered guns in the US). Terrorists would be running and gunning at that point.

Stealth Marmot
2016-12-02, 12:37 PM
Adventurers, by contrast, get attacked everywhere.

Like I said, sado-masochistic omnipotent mercurial petty being runs the universe. We call them the "DM".

Thorin Ironfist
2016-12-02, 01:59 PM
Obviously military. They're walking while carrying weapons in the open only legally allowed to the military in the Western world (or very, very expensive pre-FOPA grandfathered guns in the US). Terrorists would be running and gunning at that point.

There is almost no visible difference between a military assault rifle and a civilian semi-automatic rifle. Almost everything is internal, and while there are some cosmetic differences such as stamps and an extra firing mode, they are very difficult to see at a glance. And a well informed group of terrorists might hold their fire until they are in a more densely populated area, and with no markings identifying their purpose or cause, there is no way to know.

Hawkstar
2016-12-02, 02:15 PM
There is almost no visible difference between a military assault rifle and a civilian semi-automatic rifle. Almost everything is internal, and while there are some cosmetic differences such as stamps and an extra firing mode, they are very difficult to see at a glance. And a well informed group of terrorists might hold their fire until they are in a more densely populated area, and with no markings identifying their purpose or cause, there is no way to know.... have you never been to Wal-Mart?

Deophaun
2016-12-02, 02:44 PM
There is almost no visible difference between a military assault rifle and a civilian semi-automatic rifle. Almost everything is internal, and while there are some cosmetic differences such as stamps and an extra firing mode, they are very difficult to see at a glance.
But obviously, despite the difficulty, they were identified. Otherwise, such a detail would not be present in the question.

And a well informed group of terrorists might hold their fire until they are in a more densely populated area, and with no markings identifying their purpose or cause, there is no way to know.
This is the point where I ask for real-world instances to show that your "what if" is practical. I mean, there is the simple fact that, no matter who they are carried by, everyone gets really interested in what the people openly carrying long guns are doing. That would indicate that it's a bad tactic for setting up an ambush, especially as duffle bags are cheap.

Thorin Ironfist
2016-12-02, 03:17 PM
But obviously, despite the difficulty, they were identified. Otherwise, such a detail would not be present in the question.

The difference is a few letters in the serial number that is stamped into the metal.


This is the point where I ask for real-world instances to show that your "what if" is practical. I mean, there is the simple fact that, no matter who they are carried by, everyone gets really interested in what the people openly carrying long guns are doing. That would indicate that it's a bad tactic for setting up an ambush, especially as duffle bags are cheap.

This is true, but in places like Texas, it is commonplace for people to just carry around guns on their backs or slung over their shoulders. And the "what if" isn't really the main point. It is just a simple situation showing that even if it was common to be armed, having people outfitted for intense combat just show up with an unknown purpose, it would cause discomfort among both guards and civilians.


... have you never been to Wal-Mart?

I may live in 'Murica, but not so far south that everyone has a rifle on their back. I'm not in Texas, friend. :smallbiggrin:

Or if you were talking about the firearms thing, the rifle platforms used by the USMC currently are the M16 and the M4. Both of which are available at most gun stores. The M16A4 is currently in use by the military, and the manufacturers simply change a few internal parts to sell it to civilians.

While D&D and similar games are fantasy, it might help to compare them to ancient history. Sure, a few adventurers probably existed in ancient times and wore armor to go out and do something that could put them in danger. Maybe not danger of being attacked by goblins or giants, but danger of being attacked by a hostile group of bandits, wild animals, or thieves, sure. However, historically, adventurers were not very common because armies and guards existed for that reason. Now if our group of heroic adventurers goes out of a tavern and leaves the heavily populated city wearing their clean armor, most people and guards would just ignore them or at worst, ask what they are doing. Now if the same group of adventurers comes into the same crowded city this time wearing bloody and slightly damaged armor (after killing some bandits that had attacked the city once or twice and fled), most people are going to stare at them and back away, and the town guard will approach them (assuming the guard is not expecting them) and attempt to arrest them or at least ask what they are doing. After all, if nameless people walk up to the gate all covered in blood, it's pretty likely that the guard will find this concerning, especially after they were attacked by similarly armored people a few times before. A random guard isn't going to know the faces of the half dozen armored people that attacked once and another other half dozen that walk up to the gate because they want a bed to sleep in and their reward. And if they aren't told to remove their armor or at least clean it off, they are going to attract the attention of most civilians they pass.

Just to give a somewhat biased example, it's not every day you see someone don a bullet proof vest and run into a shady part of town to kill a bunch of gang members.

Deophaun
2016-12-02, 03:45 PM
The difference is a few letters in the serial number that is stamped into the metal.
No, there's also a seer pin hole in the exterior of the receiver, at least for AR conversions. That hole alone is enough for the ATF to prove intent, even if the internals are untouched and it's still semi-auto.

Again, as you stated assault rifle in the question, that fact is known. How it is known is of not much consequence, except that--to the eagle-eyed--it can be known.

This is true, but in places like Texas, it is commonplace for people to just carry around guns on their backs or slung over their shoulders.
Not that common (demonstrations a couple years back for hand-gun open carry in Texas that involved open carry of long guns did generate their fair share of concerned calls to the police). And if it is common to the point of desensitizing, that's not the population you want to ambush.

And the "what if" isn't really the main point. It is just a simple situation showing that even if it was common to be armed, having people outfitted for intense combat just show up with an unknown purpose, it would cause discomfort among both guards and civilians.
I'm not sure discomfort is the right word. The guards will obviously want to be informed about them (again, providing that everyone else isn't also armed to the teeth), but at the same time, such a party is so conspicuous that it wouldn't take much in the way of effort. The presence of heavily-armed adventurers would be more like the dead canary in the coal mine: it's not the canary that's the cause of concern, it's whatever killed it. Same here, except it's whatever attracted adventurers to your sleepy little hamlet in the first place that should make you uncomfortable.

As for civilians, depends.

Hawkstar
2016-12-02, 03:46 PM
I may live in 'Murica, but not so far south that everyone has a rifle on their back. I'm not in Texas, friend. :smallbiggrin: And yet, Texas exists, and it has very few issues.


While D&D and similar games are fantasy, it might help to compare them to ancient history. Sure, a few adventurers probably existed in ancient times and wore armor to go out and do something that could put them in danger. Maybe not danger of being attacked by goblins or giants, but danger of being attacked by a hostile group of bandits, wild animals, or thieves, sure. However, historically, adventurers were not very common because armies and guards existed for that reason. Now if our group of heroic adventurers goes out of a tavern and leaves the heavily populated city wearing their clean armor, most people and guards would just ignore them or at worst, ask what they are doing. Now if the same group of adventurers comes into the same crowded city this time wearing bloody and slightly damaged armor (after killing some bandits that had attacked the city once or twice and fled), most people are going to stare at them and back away, and the town guard will approach them (assuming the guard is not expecting them) and attempt to arrest them or at least ask what they are doing. After all, if nameless people walk up to the gate all covered in blood, it's pretty likely that the guard will find this concerning, especially after they were attacked by similarly armored people a few times before. A random guard isn't going to know the faces of the half dozen armored people that attacked once and another other half dozen that walk up to the gate because they want a bed to sleep in and their reward. And if they aren't told to remove their armor or at least clean it off, they are going to attract the attention of most civilians they pass.Guards who's objective is "Don't let the town get ransacked" would probably avoid trying to take aggressive action against heavily-armed adventurers coming into town with arms and armor worn from battle. All that action does is guarantee violence.

Knaight
2016-12-02, 05:52 PM
There is also a more England-centric problem when armor is considered. If you look at Samurai armor designs and some of the Roman armor designs during the Roman empire, you notice a greater range of flexibility and less weight overall. In fact, looking it up, it appears Romans would march in their armor over long distances. After all, you're carrying the armor anyway, isn't it better to have it evenly distributed over your body instead of slung in a heavy pack awkwardly? Samurai armor was built to be both flexible and not too heavy to wear the user down, since speed was an issue. Historically speaking, there are armor types designed to be worn over long distances and meant to be comfortable when worn for longer periods of time.

A few things. First, this is far from England-centric; England was never a center of plate armor (areas in what are now Italy and Germany, yes), and plate armor spread all through Europe with pieces traded much further away. Secondly the whole idea of plate armor being so heavy you could barely move in it is abject nonsense. It tended to be lighter than heavier Japanese armors, and no less flexible. As far as Roman armor goes, the famous lorica segmentata was basically an inferior breastplate, and the vast majority of roman armor used was mail anyways, which is hardly unique to the romans. Mail became ubiquitous in all of Europe, northern Africa, about the western half of Asia with India and the middle east seeing a lot in particular, and it showed up outside those regions as well, albeit more rarely and usually in a more supplemental role. It's also an armor that got heavy enough to cause difficulty to march in once there was enough of it, particularly in terms of weighing down the legs; this is a large part of the reason why lighter byrnies that covered the torso, upper legs, and either arms or upper arms were more common than heavier hauberks for centuries, particularly among infantry. That this also nicely covers vital organs as a whole is the second reason.


Keep in mind that being armed does not necessarily describe intent to start killing everyone around you. In frontier cities, it can be a lot like the old west where people would wear pistols or carry shotguns around and no one made a fuss because they had reasons for it often enough. Hell, if you go to rural cities in the US people will walk around carrying guns and no one will raise any alarm. In a world like D&D where bounty hunters and adventurers are common enough, there is no reason they would be stared at for carrying a blade.
Putting aside the factual accuracy of armament within the cities of the old west, there's more applicable sources. Being armed with a sword in most medieval cities wasn't an issue either, and in general the areas that had restrictions on weapons all over the world often didn't make that big a deal out of people carrying smaller sidearms around. Armor on the other hand consistently caught attention. Consider your example of rural cities in the US - people walk around with guns and there generally aren't alarms. People walking around with guns while wearing body armor and a helmet? That gets noticed.

wumpus
2016-12-02, 08:04 PM
Commoners and assassins would. Adventurers and Soldiers wouldn't. Soldiers wearing the Local Military Uniform are trusted by the locals, not feared. Adventurers of any color aren't 'People here to murder everyone', but 'people here to murder all our problems away". Why would an adventurer want to cover up his or her advertisements?


"Soldiers wearing the Local Military Uniform" quite a lot of this depends on conditions.

For soldiers of the local manor, the villagers would expect to recognize local soldiers and be unlikely to believe anyone else would be wearing the uniform. Sufficiently provincial areas might not trust anyone they couldn't recognize from 100 feet (and know every single intersection of each other's family tree).

There's also the case that plenty of time a fielded army would simply plunder the nearby villages for supplies. "Friend or foe" didn't matter, that's just how armies operated in the field. They were unlikely to have the logistics to be fed any other way. If this happens at all in living memory, soldiers will be hated and feared on sight (regardless of lord).

In gaming practice, this largely depends on campaign "feel". Gritty realism will have war weary villagers desperate to finally hang on to their own crops and likely to ambush any small group of soldiers. High fantasy campaigns will have "good" kingdoms that the proverbial virgin could carry a bag full of gold clear across the kingdom (of course, any highwaymen learned long ago that such is invariably a solar in disguise).

Knaight
2016-12-02, 08:11 PM
Soldiers wearing the Local Military Uniform are trusted by the locals, not feared.

See my previous comment about setting assumptions. Putting aside the whole question of "is there a uniform", there's plenty of room for soldiers to be feared. Tyrants who rule with an iron fist are a staple of fantasy, seeing soldiers wearing their uniform/insignia/heraldry/whatever is generally not a good sign.

Honest Tiefling
2016-12-03, 12:32 PM
Only because they're strangers, not because they're wearing a common piece of kit everyone else is also wearing.

I felt the need to emphasize this. Hospitality laws in the olden days had to be emphasized back in the day because few people trusted outsiders. Sure, you might want news or stories or coins they have, but they were also suspicious people that you couldn't really trust and could possibly be an outlaw or bandit. The guards might not attack them at first, but you are letting heavily armed people wander around town and head straight for the booze. Maybe someone should keep an eye on that...

Not bothering with armor is often a matter of tone, balance, and practicality. if you meet only once a week and have limited time, you might not care about little details like food, water, armor, etc. and get straight to the bits your group enjoys more. Forcing characters to remove heavier armors also favors those who don't rely on heavy equipment, which some games just don't work well with. And worrying about little details like armor or food when you're on an epic quest to punch the biggest demon in the face can get a little strange with tone.

Stormwalker
2016-12-03, 03:39 PM
So everyone knows that rangers and rogues and the like tend to wear cloaks over their leather armor. However, is it common practice for all adventurers to carry a light fabric cloak to wear over their armor or clothing just to keep it either concealed or clean? I would think that it would draw a significant amount of attention if a party of 5 strode up to your home town, brandishing massive shiny armor, large weapons, bows, maces, and a belt of heads.

Wouldn't it make sense for everyone, including commoners and soldiers, to carry a large cloak with a hood so that they:
A. don't scare all of the common people and town guard
B. are able to keep their armor clean and rust free in rainstorms
C. keep their under-cloths dry and warm

If I were not out to pillage a city and incite fear in the cute elf girl beside me at the tavern, I'd cover up my armor and leave my larger weapons at the door.

Yeah, there's always that one guy who walks with a strut that says "hail to the king, baby" and flashes his impractically heavy polished gold, copper, and steel armor, then sits down and drops his over-sized bastard sword on the table.

It kind of depends on what kind of character I am playing.


My current swashbuckler (inspired blade) wears her mithril shirt under her clothes at all times... and being as she is a swashbuckler, her clothes are typically pretty flashy. She is armed at all times, but it's a Renaissance-esque game, so her rapiers (she carries two, always good to have a backup weapon) are not really out of place. Of course, after the events of the last few sessions, she's become something of a local celebrity, so she's going to cause a stir anywhere she goes if she's not in disguise... and she's admittedly the type who enjoys the attention. Her choice of shoulder-slot magic item (a Cape of Daring Deeds) conveniently accessorizes whatever she happens to be wearing, as she can change its color at will.



My last fighter actually wore an agile breastplate rather than heavy armor specifically because I wanted him to be able to walk around in it without being massively encumbered or looking like a walking armory. He absolutely did wear a cloak over his armor. Even with that, though, by the end of that campaign the weapons he'd acquired (A Sun Blade, and a homebrew Moon Blade to go with it) were so flashy that he was still going to draw attention everywhere he went. He didn't like that - he was more sellsword (though he was very selective about his employers) than hero, and he had no desire to be gawked at. He wanted to look impressive when he was negotiating his services, of course, but when walking around town he preferred to stay under the radar. Unfortunately, when your weapons are that exceedingly magical (and are, in fact, a gift from a grateful goddess), you can't just leave them lying around... you pretty much have to carry them at all times. Sure, you could put them in your Handy Haversack or Efficient Quiver, but considering he'd made enemies among the gods as well as friends, he wasn't really comfortable being unarmed! Because of that, he was seriously considering having someone make him a set of scabbards that would glamer his weapons to something less impressive when sheathed so they would attract less attention. The campaign broke up before he got around to doing it.



About the only character I've ever had who did walk around in heavy armor on a regular basis was a paladin; she had mithral full plate to make that more manageable, and pretty much did the "knight in shining armor" look... she had a cape rather than a cloak, and wore everything pretty openly. That said, in the setting of that particular campaign, a paladin walking around was generally considered a good thing by most folks who weren't actively evil, and she was advertising her presence as a way to both reassure the good citizens and to put villains on notice.

Jay R
2016-12-04, 06:32 PM
A. If you care what the unarmed peasants think, then you're pretty low-level adventurers.

B. Covering up the armor serves no purpose. Not only can I see the difference between an armored person in a cloak and an unarmored one in a cloak, but I can also hear the difference.

C. The difference between visiting adventurers and raiders is precisely walking calmly through town, rather than attacking.

D. The cute elf girl in the tavern is not put off by signs of wealth, including weapons and armor. If she's sufficiently interested in you, she expects you to eventually take off the armor anyway.

E. But yes, some characters should do their best to hide who they are. My 2e thief deliberately wore bright colors around town during the day, saving his blacks for night-work. My gnome illusionist wears traveling clothes to adventure, not robes. He's well aware that anybody in robes draws the first attacks from the enemy. [He doesn't even own robes. Being raised in a gnome village, he has a lab coat, which he puts on only indoors, when working on research - arcane, mechanical, or alchemical projects.]

Stealth Marmot
2016-12-04, 10:09 PM
Consider your example of rural cities in the US - people walk around with guns and there generally aren't alarms. People walking around with guns while wearing body armor and a helmet? That gets noticed.
That's also because armor is not as prevalent by even on duty people such as Police officers in the modern era, though they often may have bullet resistent vests on under their uniforms. Armor may create some alarms in some regards, but in the D&D universe, it probably isn't as big a deal. Also adventurers are probably also looking traveled and carrying backpacks and such, so there will be indication it will be for travel more than the day to day.

Plus, aside from the fighter, paladin, and cleric, most of the crew will be in lighter armor anyway. A chain shirt fits under most clothing and isn't too apparent. And the paladin and cleric are usually welcome sights.

There are situations where an adventuring group will be intimidating for a town, especially a small one, but not every place or every party should be like that.The DM should have the town react accordingly.

And considering that there are people who regularly bend the laws of physics to produce explosive waves of fire and spears of lightning from their hands, I don't think a mace or a set of chainmail would be considered that huge a deal.

JAL_1138
2016-12-05, 01:36 AM
My Paladin / Valor Bard multiclass character (who is a follower of Milil, the god of bards and considered a silly twit by most of his fellow deities) dresses like a Landsknecht (except for the outrageous codpiece most Landsknecht often wore, because no). Puffed-and-slashed clothes, horribly garish colors and mismatched patterns, ridiculous hat with a huge feather or three in it--the works, in the blatant conspicuous-consumption style of Renaissance fashion.


http://c8.alamy.com/comp/ERGKPM/portrait-of-a-landsknecht-a-german-mercenary-soldier-in-the-early-ERGKPM.jpg

Somewhat different hat than this, but I couldn't find a good picture of one.

It's completely unrealistic and impractical to do this, but he clanks and rattles rather loudly when he walks, as he wears plate armor underneath the clothes (which are poofy enough to cover a chestplate and arm armor; the upper half of the leg armor is covered, and he just wears the greaves and boots openly--they're decorated with engravings and gilding quite nicely, as is the rest of his armor even though he keeps it hidden). The hat is actually a "kettle-hat" type helmet with fabric stitched over it to look like a silly hat (the helmet is also highly decorated to match the armor, despite being hidden under fabric). The clothes he wears over the armor are all designed so that he can easily remove the cloth and show up in ornate, fancy-looking armor if he needs to look more like a knight in shining armor than a bard/idiot. His halberd is silvered, and also ornately engraved and has some gilding on it to highlight parts of the engravings. He's trying to draw attention and look both rich (he's not; he spent everything on gear and potions of healing) and like nobility or someone otherwise important (he's an orphan who lived on the street for a while until he was adopted by a priest--and no, his parents weren't secretly special, they were as common as dirt. He has a massive inferiority complex and overcompensates with the expensive outfit and a fake upper-class accent.)

Also, drawing that much attention to the bard keeps people's attention off the rogue who's picking their pockets.

I have a horse and a cart to carry extra gear, and keep an extra (and completely plain and unadorned) set of common clothes and heavy armor (splint; extra plate was too expensive) in the cart in case something happens to the first set, or in case I need to lend the spares out, or in case I need to wear something less attention-grabbing, the latter two of which happen quite often. I also keep an unadorned pike, glaive, and a quarterstaff, just to cover the damage-type bases and give myself extra options appearance-wise. With the plain bog-standard weapons and armor available, I can switch out from being a fake upper-class twit to a fake grizzled soldier or mercenary quite easily.

I also keep a set of Medium armor (chain shirt; a breastplate is too expensive for something I barely ever use), a shield, and a longsword (I refuse to use the quarterstaff+shield Polearm Master cheese) in the cart, in case I ever need to use stealth and see the requirement for it coming ahead of time (the shield and longsword get lent out quite often, much like the spare heavy armor).


Generally players are not going to leave their character unarmored for their comfort because they live in a universe with a sadistic and petty omnipotent being who gets joy out of ambushes in the middle of the city or while they are sitting around at the campfire.

Any attempt to explain to your players that it will be uncomfortable will only result in their rather rightful paranoia acting up and them being sure that you will in fact have them attacked the moment they have their armor off because you hate them and want them to feel stupid.

There's nothing in the 5e rules against sleeping in armor (no, really--nothing in there on it), so I do. If the DM decided to impose a penalty on plate armor (which they'd be entirely justified in doing, I'll be the first to admit, because sleeping in plate armor on a constant basis is ridiculously absurd--although in the right weather you could get away with it for a while, it'd catch up to you eventually), I'd ask what the best armor I could sleep in without penalty would be, and get a set of that. But for the moment I'm quite prepared to do the implausible and absolutely ridiculous in return for good AC while sleeping (and yet I won't use Polearm Master with quarterstaff+shield...I never said I wasn't a hypocrite, I guess).

When I stay at an inn, I request a second-floor room, check it thoroughly with a 10ft pole and with Detect Magic up, then push furniture against the door (which is also locked and barred from inside if possible), set something heavy (and/or that'd be loud if it fell) in the window, which I also bar from the inside if possible, and tie a rope to the bedframe in case I need to rappel out the window. I then sleep sitting upright in a chair with my weapons within reach. I sometimes also put caltrops out around the door and window--skipping the caltrops around the window depending on whether I think I might need to leave in a hurry or not. When I get access to Leomund's Tiny Hut, I'll stop staying at inns altogether unless social pressures demand it.

The character uses Prestidigitation for hygeine rather than risk the vulnerability (and contact with water, the most evil and dangerous substance in D&D) that proper bathing would bring, and Mending to maintain clothing and gear.

Berenger
2016-12-05, 02:36 AM
Hiding armor and weapons or keeping the armor clean doesn't really play into wearing cloaks, I think. At least, not when dealing with neutral or friendly people on a day-to-day basis. Attempting to hide your face, coat of arms or your weapons is, actually, a big red flag that would raise suspicion in almost everyone. Armor is kept rust-free by daily care, not by wearing a cloak, actually, the cloth might rub of the oily, protective layer that is applied to armor.

On hiding weapons, a cloak won't hide weapons bigger than a short sword for long and trying to do so is simply untrustworthy behaviour. There may even be laws against hidden weapons (not uncommon in medieval towns). In walled settlements, it would be common courtesy (and much more comfortable) to leave weapons and armor at home (or at your tavern room), doing otherwise implies that you are looking for or expecting trouble. The exception are daggers or swords, which may, depending on your setting, be a fashion item / a status symbol. In real cultures, this tends to happen with sheathed weapons (e.g. swords, daggers, rapiers, sabers and the like) that can be hung from a belt and whose deadly parts remain covered during non-use, not with spears or bows or two-handers which were carried in hand.

Armor, on the other hand, is a no-go among friends (being on guard duty, a parade or a tourney are obvious exceptions). Wearing armor in the streets was highly suspicious even where smallswords and daggers where simply part of a made man's attire. Often, the reasoning of the law-makers was that a man needed a blade to defend his honor, but blades coupled with armor made men too brave and eager to fight each other (common amongst young men, drunk men, and, worst of all, young drunk men) over every imagined slight without thinking twice. As a side note, even when it came to a duel / armed conflict, there were sometimes several steps of escalation (e.g. stabbing is worse than slashing).

Of course, cloaks make sense for warmth and fashion purposes, but unless the weather is terrible, they are not worn in a way that hides your identity or much of your equipment. Concerning cute elf girls in tavern: the recommended procedure for adventurers is to get a room, order a hot bath, change into more civilian clothes, leave any weapons except maybe those noted above upstairs and make smalltalk about anything else than the death-squeal of the orc you disemboweled two days ago. If you don't have a room and travel armored for legitimate reasons and don't have the opportunity to change attire, leave weapons, helmets and gauntlets by the door.

Slipperychicken
2016-12-05, 03:19 AM
So everyone knows that rangers and rogues and the like tend to wear cloaks over their leather armor. However, is it common practice for all adventurers to carry a light fabric cloak to wear over their armor or clothing just to keep it either concealed or clean? I would think that it would draw a significant amount of attention if a party of 5 strode up to your home town, brandishing massive shiny armor, large weapons, bows, maces, and a belt of heads.

I think it would naturally draw attention, cloak or no, but armed travelers would be fairly typical in a world so full of danger, violence, and instability as one of the assumed fantasy game-settings. You'd be a fool to travel without protection when bloodthirsty marauders lie in wait, to say nothing of all the literal monsters! For a good example, Conan the Barbarian has little trouble accessing services like inns and merchants, despite often being armored and lacking civilized etiquette.

However, attempts to conceal armor would help make it clear that the travelers are not looking for a fight, so there's no immediate cause to enter panic-mode, though you'd stay wary in case they try something. Innkeepers and merchants would serve such patrons: after all, people with all that armor must have some cash to spend. The peace-keeping watchmen might keep their eyes on them, ask their business, and try to remember them for later, but I don't see the query going much further than that.

As far as penalizing characters who wear their armor 24/7, the farthest I go is regular encumbrance, and a slight penalty if they wear medium or heavy armor for a full week without taking it off, representing accumulated filth and discomfort. They can reset that timer if they rest in light armor or less for about eight hours, or bathe thoroughly.


Soldiers wearing the Local Military Uniform are trusted by the locals, not feared.

You seem to have a very optimistic view of the way soldiers and police tend to interact with civilians. For civilians who interact with those two groups enough to create an informed opinion, the relationship tends to lean closer to the 'hated but feared' end of the spectrum. The people I've heard speak on the issue rarely have much good to say about military, sailors, or police. All across the world are plentiful examples of armed and uniformed men abusing their power to act like thugs, and that activity rightfully antagonizing the communities where they operate. There are exceptions, and armed groups with the organizational discipline to keep their members from terrorizing people, but that's the general idea.

Berenger
2016-12-05, 03:44 AM
You seem to have a very optimistic view of the way soldiers and police tend to interact with civilians. For civilians who interact with those two groups enough to create an informed opinion, the relationship tends to lean closer to the 'hated but feared' end of the spectrum. The people I've heard speak on the issue rarely have much good to say about military, sailors, or police. All across the world are plentiful examples of armed and uniformed men abusing their power to act like thugs, and that activity rightfully antagonizing the communities where they operate. There are exceptions, and armed groups with the organizational discipline to keep their members from terrorizing people, but that's the general idea.

That's true, unless you reside in a medieval-ish city in which the watch / the militia consists of every able-bodied male citizen. In that case, you are the Local Military, at least every second and fourth thursday in the month. Which you hate, because you are actually a brewer and would like to concentrate on brewing beer, so you petition the council to get mercenaries for the guard job. :D

Hawkstar
2016-12-05, 11:28 PM
You seem to have a very optimistic view of the way soldiers and police tend to interact with civilians. For civilians who interact with those two groups enough to create an informed opinion, the relationship tends to lean closer to the 'hated but feared' end of the spectrum. The people I've heard speak on the issue rarely have much good to say about military, sailors, or police. All across the world are plentiful examples of armed and uniformed men abusing their power to act like thugs, and that activity rightfully antagonizing the communities where they operate. There are exceptions, and armed groups with the organizational discipline to keep their members from terrorizing people, but that's the general idea.

This REALLY depends on the community - while there are some who see police as 'thugs in uniform", there are also many that are gushingly appreciative and supportive of the men and women serving as guards or soldiers, and willing to kill anyone who dares disrespect them.

MarkVIIIMarc
2016-12-05, 11:52 PM
You seem to have a very optimistic view of the way soldiers and police tend to interact with civilians. For civilians who interact with those two groups enough to create an informed opinion, the relationship tends to lean closer to the 'hated but feared' end of the spectrum. The people I've heard speak on the issue rarely have much good to say about military, sailors, or police. All across the world are plentiful examples of armed and uniformed men abusing their power to act like thugs, and that activity rightfully antagonizing the communities where they operate. There are exceptions, and armed groups with the organizational discipline to keep their members from terrorizing people, but that's the general idea.

This is interesting and timely.

People in oppressive countries no doubt are quite apprehensive when dealing with law enforcement / military. In oppressive countries the two are usually pretty closely tied.

People up to something are apprehensive also. I've been there.

There is a certain amount of fear going about now. I'm not having weekly drunk interactions with law enforcement anymore I still get a ticket usually involving speeding into a curve about once every year or two and it is always a polite transaction.

Probably would be a neat game mechanic to have the city guard notice how citizens used to support them but are now leery since the mayor turned evil.

Knaight
2016-12-06, 04:09 AM
People up to something are apprehensive also. I've been there.

Distrust towards police is by no means limited to people who are up to something.

Stealth Marmot
2016-12-06, 07:56 AM
Distrust towards police is by no means limited to people who are up to something.

Hence the "also".

This could very easily become a political thread, so let's focus on how adventurers' comfort and how the public interacts with them based on their armaments rather than dealing with the social implications of police and military forces.

I think the important thing to remember is that at the end of the day, the reaction of heavily armed paramilitary style groups like adventurers is entirely setting based and thus up to the DM.

Are adventurers common? Then no big deal seeing a guy in full plate. Are they rare? Then the guy might be avoided for the most part in a town.

What about being armed? Well if adventurers are common then they probably won't get a second glance so long as their weapons are sheathed and not held in a threatening fashion.

Some towns though might ask you to check your weapons before you enter. Apparently, some towns in the "Wild" west used to do such, expecting people to check their pistols and guns at the edge of town. Some towns might have a similar expectation, or they might expect you to "peace-bind" a weapon, where they tightly tie a weapon into its sheath so it takes several seconds to try to unsheath it, or puts bags or binds or pads on the end of weapons so that they can't be used to poke or impale people, or the bows need to be constantly unstrung (which reminds me, I'll ask about bows at the end for people who might know more).

As for the comfort level and keeping clothes dry and warm, I generally consider the idea that characters automatically know how to maintain their armor as part of armor proficiency. I also assume that a character will automatically maintain it in order to keep their own comfort because in real life people will automatically do what they need to to maintain comfort as part of their daily lives. You usually don't need to TELL someone to tie their shoes, they will do it by themselves when their shoes are flopping around and nearly falling off. Characters are the same way. If a player wants to roleplay that sort of thing out, you should give them some feedback, but don't require everyone to mention their maintenance just to say a few days later "You forgot to wax your bowstring, so you take a -2 on attack damage or it will snap."

I remember reading a first edition handbook where it actually specifically talks about how armor and weapon maintenance is handled during downtime when camping or sleeping, so don't bother spending time worrying about it.

I also emphasize the idea that any magical armor or weapon will require minimal, if any, maintenance outside of major hole repair. I figure that magical enchantments to make it harder or more damaging would also protect it against normal wear and tear.

Now I do wonder about bows though. Doing minimal research, I'm still uncertain about how leaving them strung can affect them. Again, magical weapons are one thing, but your average bow, should it be left unstrung most of the time?

Thorin Ironfist
2016-12-06, 10:29 AM
I also emphasize the idea that any magical armor or weapon will require minimal, if any, maintenance outside of major hole repair. I figure that magical enchantments to make it harder or more damaging would also protect it against normal wear and tear.

Now I do wonder about bows though. Doing minimal research, I'm still uncertain about how leaving them strung can affect them. Again, magical weapons are one thing, but your average bow, should it be left unstrung most of the time?

Personally, I would hammer out dents and polish out scratches in my armor, assuming I had a hammer and something hard to hit it on. If I found holes/puncture wounds in it, I would take it to a blacksmith as soon as I could as I wouldn't trust myself to deal with that kind of damage without making it worse.

I've been practicing archery for a while (with both a traditional long-bow and a compound bow) and I've noticed that keeping the longbow strung for long periods of time does not seem to affect it. I don't think unstringing it when not in use is required, but for long term storage, I am not sure. Though I would assume that armories and shops would leave them unstrung while in storage/on display. I'm not a professional, so all of this is just my opinion.

Beleriphon
2016-12-10, 03:03 PM
That's also because armor is not as prevalent by even on duty people such as Police officers in the modern era, though they often may have bullet resistent vests on under their uniforms. Armor may create some alarms in some regards, but in the D&D universe, it probably isn't as big a deal. Also adventurers are probably also looking traveled and carrying backpacks and such, so there will be indication it will be for travel more than the day to day.

I'm pretty sure anybody wandering around even the most gun friendly towns in Texas in a full EOD suit, along with say an M60 or a SAW might draw some attention to yourself.

As for travel gear, actually wearing armour on the move, especially when mounted, makes more sense than not wearing it normally. A heavy wool, or oiled cloak makes sense for warmth protection from the elements. A backpack and other small gear under the cloak, plus any weapons one might carry. In your world your typical peasant group would probably have a few knives since they are generally ubiquitous and needed for cooking.

Daremonai
2016-12-10, 03:34 PM
You absolutely should leave your bow unstrung whenever it is not in active use. Leaving it strung will rob it of some of its "spring", effectively weakening it.

Stealth Marmot
2016-12-10, 11:42 PM
You absolutely should leave your bow unstrung whenever it is not in active use. Leaving it strung will rob it of some of its "spring", effectively weakening it.

Where did you hear this?

I'm not arguing against it, I don't know either way, I just want to check my sources.

It makes some sense that it would eventually cause it to lose spring, but I'm wondering how long that process takes, days, months, or years.

Daremonai
2016-12-11, 08:58 AM
I heard it from just about everyone who does reenactment archery with me. My understanding is that it takes a couple of weeks to be noticeable.

Thorin Ironfist
2016-12-12, 08:56 AM
I heard it from just about everyone who does reenactment archery with me. My understanding is that it takes a couple of weeks to be noticeable.

Really. Well, mine's been left strung for around 2 months (please don't kill me) and I haven't noticed any significant weakness. However, this could also be simply because it is left in a dry and dark atmosphere, and the fact that the string is nylon.

Khedrac
2016-12-12, 10:28 AM
and the fact that the string is nylon.
I think that could also be significant. Modern materials are slower to warp under tension than traditional ones, and bow-strings probably began to stretch far more quickly than bows to warp.
Nylon strings may stretch but it will be different.

Thorin Ironfist
2016-12-12, 11:24 AM
I think that could also be significant. Modern materials are slower to warp under tension than traditional ones, and bow-strings probably began to stretch far more quickly than bows to warp.
Nylon strings may stretch but it will be different.

Makes sense.

Daremonai
2016-12-12, 02:04 PM
That's a good point, actually. My advice extends to wooden longbows - I have no experience or clue how modern carbon-fibre bows might fare.

Knaight
2016-12-12, 02:16 PM
That's a good point, actually. My advice extends to wooden longbows - I have no experience or clue how modern carbon-fibre bows might fare.

I know that it's a complete non-issue for compound bows. For recurves built out of modern materials I have no idea either.

Thorin Ironfist
2016-12-12, 02:16 PM
That's a good point, actually. My advice extends to wooden longbows - I have no experience or clue how modern carbon-fibre bows might fare.

So how would the environment in which the bow is stored have an effect on the bow that is left strung?

And on the topic of armor, would it be expected of a low level adventurer to know at least the basics of blacksmithing so they would know how to repair the armor? I can see a higher level warrior knowing how to fix moderate damage, but would the average starting adventurer have any idea what to do? I'd think that they might risk damaging it if they don't have the experience to do that.

Daremonai
2016-12-12, 02:58 PM
Depending on what you mean by "repair", it could be possible. Most of my armour repairs have been popped rivets or snapped leather straps - easy enough to replace. And the neverending fight against rust, of course.

I don't know any specific storage instructions for bows, beyond the simple fact that if you leave something wooden somewhere damp, it'll rot, warp, or both.

Thorin Ironfist
2016-12-12, 03:16 PM
I mean like dents caused either by weapons or accidents (falling, walking into things, being dropped, etc.) I have a small shield I made (a little steel buckler) that was damaged. I decided "eh, this will be a quick fix" and really quickly hammered out the dent in the center. Little did I know, the dent was worse of a problem than what I thought and I ended up with a nice crack along the line of the dent. The buckler was hit hard by a gladius during a test and was left with a horizontal dent roughly a quarter to a half inch deep, and about 3 inches long. After my "fix", there was a crack where the dent was, going mostly through the steel about 2 inches long. Inexperienced blacksmith hobbyist + overconfidence = damaged gear. No bueno.

Corsair14
2016-12-13, 09:28 AM
As said, it is very time period dependent. Romans wore their scale or chain tunics on the march and did not carry them. For one they didn't have enough baggage train to carry their armor, camping equipment, food etc. So much easier to just wear their armor.

Later period things changed. Well use Polish Hussars or even Samurai, both are similar in this aspect. When traveling(not on patrol) they kept their armor in boxes. They also did not ride their warhorses when not in combat, they had very poor temperaments and had no issue biting or kicking even their owners. Also they did not want to wear down their battle mounts so typically mounted troops had a second riding mount which was smaller but wasn't going to fight the owner or anyone who walked by.

The Hussars would have a pack horse or mule, or better yet a cart carrying theirs and their two or more "men at arms'"(there's a Polish word for it, but that's the closest besides battle buddies the noble equipped) equipment and typically a page or two for cleaning the armor and so forth. The boxes the armor were in protected them from the elements and reduced the need for constant scrubbing in the European and Japanese humidity. The Japanese had the nice lacquer that enameled their plate but the inside and any scratches would still rust and no one wanted to be the ones to reapply more lacquer(it was made with a plant that was a close relative to poison ivy). So on campaign unless in use was kept as dry and clean as possible. Note the Hussars typically enameled their armor too, the bright silver thing is a more modern interpretation of the armor which looks nice in museums and movies, tapestries from the period show most everyone in dark enameled armor to reduce rust. Even in Britain, in the Victorian era they polished all the armor because it looked more awesome. very much a rosy glasses kind of thing.

I would guess most of Europe during the era of plate would do something similar since we know they enameled their armor also but likely on the march would not want to damage it or wear down their horses. Foot troops probably still wore their armor(typically no more than a breast plate and thigh guards with chain) but a fully armored head to toe foot troop was incredibly rare and expensive(they wore the equivalent of Ferraris) and was likely a noble of some sort. Lets face it, if they can afford a full suit of armor, they can afford a cart to carry it and a laborer to drive it while they rode a comfortable riding horse.

Cloaks by the way were not really fashion statements. They were practical items worn to keep one warm at night. While its a fantasy trope that rogues and rangers wear them all the time, during the day when they weren't in the field and had all their belongings with them, you wouldn't see them. They get in the way of normal activities and are fairly hot(which is the point).

Togas as someone said, were not worn commonly. They are flipping annoying to wear being very heavy, hot, and very much obstructive to activity. Only citizens of Rome were allowed to wear them and only Senators and the Emperor wore them commonly on official duty. The one exception to this was one Emperor wanted to increase the visibility and pride of Roman citizens and mandated that all citizens wore togas while in the cities at all times. The next emperor as on of his first decrees rescinded that one to much applause. For the most part, both citizen, freemen, and slaves wore tunics with no pants(this changed as more "barbarians" intertwined into society bring their pants and leg wraps with them). The status of a person was easily visible by the trim, color and material of a person's tunics. Purple was reserved for the royal family though. Popular fiction has the praetorian guard wearing purple but most historians argue they dressed like typical soldiers both on and off the field.

Armor sucks to wear for long periods of time. It chafes, its hot(or really flipping cold in winter), helms magnify the heat or cold(worst case of windburn I have ever had was wearing an open faced helm in 40 degree weather on an open field for eight hours or so) and pinches in places better not pinched. Even well fitted armor, which is a pet peeve of mine in DnD where one size fits most, will pinch and "bite" the wearer. You can sleep in it usually, done it plenty of times but it consists of being tired and rolling around til you find the most comfortable position you can find in uncomfortable armor.

Jay R
2016-12-13, 11:18 AM
Googling "should you leave a bow strung" gets nearly two million hits. The consensus of the half dozen I've seen seems to be that fiberglass bows aren't hurt by it, but a bow made of natural materials will lose power over time, simply because natural materials degrade, and under stress it will degrade to reduce the stress - which is identical to the power of the bow.

I was taught that you shouldn't leave a bow strung in the Boy Scout archery classes, my high school archery team, and in SCA archery.

I suspect that over a single season, it won't make a noticeable difference, but I do know that in the medieval period, archers strung their bows for battle, and unstrung them afterwards.

It's also bad for a natural fiber string. If it stretches even a small amount, the bow is much less powerful. That effect can be pretty quick. Again, it shouldn't affect a nylon string.

My D&D ranger doesn't use his bow when the party is attacked at night, because it would be unstrung then.


So how would the environment in which the bow is stored have an effect on the bow that is left strung?

The wetter and warmer the environment, the faster wood and string degrade. Most especially, if it starts raining, unstring the bow and put the string somewhere safe. A natural fiber string will stretch a little in the course of a single rainstorm. One of several reasons that the English won at Crecy is that when it started to rain, the English longbowmen unstrung their bows. The Genoese crossbowmen couldn't, and they were far less effective. When the rain stopped, the English had the best long-range firepower.


And on the topic of armor, would it be expected of a low level adventurer to know at least the basics of blacksmithing so they would know how to repair the armor?

That's two questions, and the answers are no and yes. No, they wouldn't know anything about blacksmith, but yes, they should know how to re-attach straps, etc. I know nothing about blacksmithing, and repair my armor regularly.


I can see a higher level warrior knowing how to fix moderate damage, but would the average starting adventurer have any idea what to do? I'd think that they might risk damaging it if they don't have the experience to do that.

The armor is supposed to withstand swords and maces. You can't do much damage to it just setting a rivet. Basic repairs aren't done in a forge at high heat.

Hammering out dents can be done, and obviously affects the metal plates. After all, that's the goal. But if it survived the first blow, it will survive undoing it. [But it's not as strong as it was afterwards. Remember that the way to break metal is to bend it back and forth until it gets brittle.]

Berenger
2016-12-13, 12:30 PM
And on the topic of armor, would it be expected of a low level adventurer to know at least the basics of blacksmithing so they would know how to repair the armor? I can see a higher level warrior knowing how to fix moderate damage, but would the average starting adventurer have any idea what to do? I'd think that they might risk damaging it if they don't have the experience to do that.

I don't really get the context of that question.

First, as pointed out by Jay R, "blacksmithing skills" and "the ability to keep your armor in working condition out in the field" are not the same thing and don't require the same equipment. Blacksmithing requires several specialized tools, coal and a smithy. You can't carry those around during an adventure (Okay, let's be honest, you probably can with proper min-maxing, but at this level of silliness most people stop worrying about stuff like wear and tear). If you get near a smithy, there usually is a smith that can help you out.

From a standpoint of realism / verisimilitude / fluff, the answer is: "An average starting adventurer" is not a meaningful unit of measurement. A dwarven warrior who grew up in a clan of master craftsmen? Yes, he knows. A spoiled noble that never got his hands dirty and always had a servant to take care of his equipment? Probably hasn't a clue, but might figure out. A weird frog-man without opposable thumbs whose species uses neither tools nor armor? No. But to actually worsen the condition of the armor, a character would have to do something spectacularly stupid...

From a standpoint of game rules: If the game system has rules for armor degradation, it will also have rules for armor repair and will specify whether all, some or none classes get the required skill for free. If it has no such rules, I'd be mildly irritated if a GM would start to throw penalties at me for not possessing a skill that is not mentioned in the rules. If there is something like "Light / Medium / Heavy Armor Proficiency" and no further mention of armor degradation and armor degradation prevention, I'd say that it is covered by this line of feats.

kyoryu
2016-12-13, 01:00 PM
As others have said, it all depends on the tone of the campaign and the culture of the town you're in.

That's actually an interesting thing to play with, I think - differing tolerances for walking around armed and armored in "civilization" vs "the boonies".

Corsair14
2016-12-13, 01:07 PM
Its up to the DM to make that ruling and make it known to the players. I have that ruling in my game and one of the characters is a smith that does the work for all of the party in between adventures and costs d4 gp for materials. Simple stuff in the field can be done with a small anvil(easy to carry) a mallet and rivets. Your basic armor kit would have these things. While anyone can hammer a rivet, knowing what you are doing will save on material when you cut everything and then find you did the wrong size or put stressed areas in the wrong place. I have made shoulder pieces for my SCA kit and cut quite a bit of leather by mistake and went through multiple rivets and I kinda know what I am doing. Armor repair while it looks straight forward and isn't rocket science for standard wear and tear, takes a whole new meaning when you have to replace an entire section and are sitting under a tent in the rain trying to fix it with wet leather to be on the field in an hour. God forbid you had your metal pieces made of high carbon steel or mild steel.

Jay R
2016-12-13, 01:15 PM
In the introduction to a recent 2E game, I wrote, "I urge the party as a whole to have sewing, leatherwork, and blacksmithing, just to repair clothes and armor. Otherwise, I’ll have to track any damage done. Similarly, if you don’t have a fletcher, I will count arrows."

Knaight
2016-12-13, 01:34 PM
From a standpoint of realism / verisimilitude / fluff, the answer is: "An average starting adventurer" is not a meaningful unit of measurement. A dwarven warrior who grew up in a clan of master craftsmen? Yes, he knows. A spoiled noble that never got his hands dirty and always had a servant to take care of his equipment? Probably hasn't a clue, but might figure out. A weird frog-man without opposable thumbs whose species uses neither tools nor armor? No. But to actually worsen the condition of the armor, a character would have to do something spectacularly stupid...

Generally yes. On the other hand, attempting actual blacksmithing on a forge without training is exactly the sort of thing that could do it. Good steel is (broadly speaking) heated to a fairly narrow temperature range and cooled within a fairly narrow time frame. Something like heating it up to the wrong temperature then air cooling could dramatically worsen armor. Heck, heating it up to the right temperature then air cooling could dramatically weaken armor.

Stealth Marmot
2016-12-14, 07:21 AM
Generally yes. On the other hand, attempting actual blacksmithing on a forge without training is exactly the sort of thing that could do it. Good steel is (broadly speaking) heated to a fairly narrow temperature range and cooled within a fairly narrow time frame. Something like heating it up to the wrong temperature then air cooling could dramatically worsen armor. Heck, heating it up to the right temperature then air cooling could dramatically weaken armor.

But...but....JET FUEL CAN'T MELT STEEL BEAMS!

Thorin Ironfist
2016-12-14, 08:59 AM
Generally yes. On the other hand, attempting actual blacksmithing on a forge without training is exactly the sort of thing that could do it. Good steel is (broadly speaking) heated to a fairly narrow temperature range and cooled within a fairly narrow time frame. Something like heating it up to the wrong temperature then air cooling could dramatically worsen armor. Heck, heating it up to the right temperature then air cooling could dramatically weaken armor.

Exactly what I'm talking about. A younger adventurer who didn't work around smiths as a child may be likely to convince himself that it can't be that hard to do then end up with a wonky sword that may break when struck after trying to "improve" his own, if he was especially naive. I'd assume that most adventurers would know what needs repair and what doesn't, and if it required any sort of skill, they would just take it to the blacksmith.

TheCountAlucard
2016-12-14, 09:48 AM
But...but....JET FUEL CAN'T MELT STEEL BEAMS!It doesn't have to - it only takes about 1100°F to reduce the strength of steel by half, which is well within the temperature range for jet fuel burning. The upper range is enough to reduce it to somewhere like 10% strength.

Stealth Marmot
2016-12-14, 10:56 AM
It doesn't have to - it only takes about 1100°F to reduce the strength of steel by half, which is well within the temperature range for jet fuel burning. The upper range is enough to reduce it to somewhere like 10% strength.

But but...*wraps head in tinfoil hat*

kyoryu
2016-12-14, 11:02 AM
It doesn't have to - it only takes about 1100°F to reduce the strength of steel by half, which is well within the temperature range for jet fuel burning. The upper range is enough to reduce it to somewhere like 10% strength.

You failed your Notice Sarcasm check, I think.

Keltest
2016-12-14, 11:18 AM
Exactly what I'm talking about. A younger adventurer who didn't work around smiths as a child may be likely to convince himself that it can't be that hard to do then end up with a wonky sword that may break when struck after trying to "improve" his own, if he was especially naive. I'd assume that most adventurers would know what needs repair and what doesn't, and if it required any sort of skill, they would just take it to the blacksmith.

If a younger adventurer is looking at a sword and going "i am going to need a forge to fix this" then the sword is broken beyond repair and should be replaced. A dull sword can be sharpened, nicks can be mitigated, but a broken - actually broken - sword is very dead.

TheCountAlucard
2016-12-14, 11:20 AM
You failed your Notice Sarcasm check, I think.Nah, I'm just not particularly enamored of the joke. (https://youtu.be/PBQIhjaFVlg)

Thorin Ironfist
2016-12-14, 11:46 AM
If a younger adventurer is looking at a sword and going "i am going to need a forge to fix this" then the sword is broken beyond repair and should be replaced. A dull sword can be sharpened, nicks can be mitigated, but a broken - actually broken - sword is very dead.

I was thinking that the adventurer might think that they need a forge to repair or improve the sword because they want to look or feel awesome.

Basically try to be "tacticool."

TheCountAlucard
2016-12-14, 12:14 PM
To be fair, it could well be worth the effort of rebuilding a destroyed sword if it was made of absurdly rare metals like adamantine/mithral/orichalcum/Valyrian Steel, or if the blade was magical and any remnants of the old enchantment remained in the pieces.

Stealth Marmot
2016-12-14, 12:48 PM
To be fair, it could well be worth the effort of rebuilding a destroyed sword if it was made of absurdly rare metals like adamantine/mithral/orichalcum/Valyrian Steel, or if the blade was magical and any remnants of the old enchantment remained in the pieces.

Or it had sentimental value or was an heirloom. (Like Roy's sword)

Aeson
2016-12-14, 01:46 PM
To be fair, it could well be worth the effort of rebuilding a destroyed sword if it was made of absurdly rare metals like adamantine/mithral/orichalcum/Valyrian Steel, or if the blade was magical and any remnants of the old enchantment remained in the pieces.
Trying to put the pieces back together leaves weaknesses in the blade which make it more likely to break than a new blade would be. You can do it, but if the blade has actually broken, the best thing you can do to 'repair' it is melt the pieces down and forge a new blade from the recovered metal; the new blade will be smaller than the old unless you add more metal to it, but it's not going to have the flaws that would have been present had you attempted to reconstruct the old blade by fusing the pieces together (fusing the pieces back together in any way will also likely result in a smaller blade, in part because you want to get a clean surface at the break points so as to have as few flaws in the join as possible and in part because there's a possibility that not all of the pieces of the blade will have been recovered, and even if recovered some might not have been worth the effort of trying to reattach to the blade).

I'm also less than certain that I'd want to risk working with the pieces of an enchanted weapon if the enchantment, or parts thereof, remained active within the pieces, especially if the setting is one in which enchantments can go wonky if the enchanted object becomes damaged. Do you really want to risk working with the pieces of the blade of a Necrotic Sword of Slaying or something like that when the pieces might inflict dangerous magical effects on you if you nick your finger on a sharp edge or something like that?

TheCountAlucard
2016-12-14, 08:43 PM
Make Whole is only a second-level spell. :smalltongue: