Ever on the watch for danger.

[Spore]

There you have it, the average fantasy party. A strong fighter, clad in heavy armor, wielding a magical greatsword of legends. The rogue, a leather clad specialist in ranged and melee combat. The wizard, ever along with his arcane focus or component pouch, clad in a simple robes but adorned with magical trinkets. The cleric, ever pious, wearing a medium armor and wielding a mace, for simple defense.

They are relaxed and feel secure. They go out for dinner in town. No one wears armor except the rogue because he is used to unsavory places. No one has any weapons except daggers and the odd mace. Even the expensive staff is at home. Instead, the wizard brought a focus and his memorized spells for emergencies. As the second course is served, a wall explodes, and alchemist, this group's big villain barges in and attacks with his horde of alchemical zombies and magical beasts.

The rogue vanishes, his target being the alchemist. He sneaks through the inn and catches the alchemist off guard. His poison vials are at home but a pierced lung should do the trick for now. The wizard protects the fleeing dinner guests with a force wall spell and keeps the smaller beasts busy with a few summoned creatures. The cleric tries to heal the heroes and guests, he turns the alchemical zombies. What does the fighter do? All he has is a small dagger, he is unarmored and his job is it to confront the big chimera. He has enough hit points but the DM expected the heroes to confront the impatient villain in his lair rather than them getting something to eat.

And yes, the DM can adjust the encounter to the equipment currently worn. The alchemical vats that he planned for healing the alchemical creations are gone. But it feels like a "mistake" to the character reliant on gear. He will attend most of the dinner invitations next week in his Full Plate with his Twohanded Sword. Same would go for a wizard who found an incredibly cool staff that he just left. Basically every time this happens the group somewhat more resembles a bunch of murder hobos, carrying about all of their belongings to even the most inappropriate places.

Other genres exacerbate or lessen this problem, depending on setting and characters. A WoD vampire would be perfectly fine without a fire arm. A Warhammer 40k Arbitrator would be screwed without his shotgun (though THIS is the one setting so twisted I could see plasma launchers at the ready with an inquisitorial banquet). The post apocalyptical scrapper is caught in a raider attack without his trusty "nail gun", reducing his combat abilities to "duck every round" because he agreed to enter the meeting with a new potential ally unarmed.

As an extreme result we have a player that always defaults to a single type of personality with his characters: The militant fanatic. They carry their essential combat gear EVERYWHERE. And it is annoying, but I can see it working so many times. For me, it just doesn't just ruin my immersion somewhat. It strangles it down because all I can ever think of now is "could this encounter end in combat" even though my character would never be this paranoid.

I am not saying I am adverse to good RP combat, on the contrary. Ususally the looming threat of combat is what keeps me engaged (as I do not play P&P to be dating sims with slightly exotic locales). But the simple question: "What are you wearing to the dinner party?" along with the DM grinning makes me mad.

The second thing this does is ruin any concept that relies on gear or preparation too much. A buffed up cleric, a power armor wearing soldier is well and good. But if the stars only align every 10 sessions (which could as well be 3-4 months apart) then you either increase your odds by wearing power armor to a formal dinner or play the reduced pool of options.

You pick the armor option that can double as "just thick clothing". Leather Armors are prevalent for that.
You pick the weapon option that does acceptable damage while being either concealable or have to expend additional resources for a side arm that other character do not have to do (the soldier could be forced to buy a poorly maintained pistol instead of using their super rifle around which all of the class is balanced).
And you pick the class features that apply more often than those that you wanted (your droid mechanic suddenly has significant knowledge in how to pilot and repair a starship).

But I do not even care about the evident mechanical disadvantages. I just hate the mindset this develops. The players are increasingly paranoid to the point where the average non-combatant would laugh at them. It is like justified PTSD.

Sorry for this long rant, but what are your thoughts?

[Kaptin Keen]

Simple fix: Allow every fighter - or equivalent - to wield any large object (bench, small statue, garden tool, frying pan, halfbrick in a sock) as an effective weapon, and any flat object (dumpter lid, serving tray, door - or an unwilling bureaucrat) as a shield.

[MariettaGecko]

I agree... this is a problem. Really, the only characters who have real problems with it are the non-magical, front-line fighter-types... I'm thinking Rangers, Fighters, Paladins (to some extent), etc. All the magic-users and sneaky-types get deal with no problems.

Most my the games in my group tend to make use of some sort of magical-ish hammerspace wherein we have our things with us, but they aren't apparent until we need them, if mainly because we forget all the details of taking off armor or whatever, if mainly for convenience.

[LibraryOgre]

The fighter needs to improvise, and the DM needs to let him.

He's going to be down armor, which is a big deal, but can he get a shield? Can he use something (a chair, perhaps) as an improvised club (maybe 2-handed)? are any of the zombies armed? Does the town guard show up and have a weapon he can borrow? Is there a wall-hanger sword around that he can grab and use? You've probably got a big to-hit advantage over them... do you have an ability to sacrifice to-hit bonuses for AC? Can you do things like fight defensively or other options to increase your defenses?

Of course, there's always the option of "Did you prepare for things going to ****?" You're carrying a dagger... do you have an emergency Mage Armor potion you keep in your belt pouch? Heck, do you have a fancy dress sword that you can wear out and no one will comment on you being paranoid because it looks SMASHING? Or a potion of Shield? Did you get a coat of mithril that you can wear under your normal shirt just for such an occasion? What about a cloak or ring of protection? Or a bag of holding that will hold all of your crap for when you need it?

[Spore]

It is not the point that they should prepare. I say definitely. The problem is that different roles have a different time with these kinds of problems. I guess it is the old question of: "Should we make all classes/roles the same?" or not. Diversity and different problems are well and good but characters should not have a time this inequal


The fighter needs to improvise, and the DM needs to let him.

While I agree, any player that does not know the DM and has some kind of foresight shies away from ideas like an ironclad dwarf or a knight astride a horse.

Just yesterday I completely threw a concept right out of the window because the system has the audacity to reduce my movement speed by a third for wearing a heavy armor. The resulting character is fine as well but I have seen many concepts just not working.

My old Pathfinder table had a Dwarf fighter. You know Pathfinder fighters. They're supposed to be the best at fighting and suck at everything else. It just didn't work. Half of the fights she removed her armor or left her weapons in her room because she was supposed to be on safe ground. The other half of the fights, her damage and tanking capability was reduced because dwarves are just really slow and get out maneuvered.

The fact that the character was so slow even killed our ranged paladin. The player had NO fun and simply left the table. There was no will to improvise, and even if she did, back in these days we used the rules as written (-4 for improvised weapons, and because without armor she has almost no armor class, pretty much instantly killed).

Yes, somehow 5e made this better. But disadvantage on stealth (and probably high DCs for swimming and the like) is still there. Dex combatants don't even suffer in the damage part because of finesse weapons.

But I have seen this in other systems too. Be it my scrapper when there is no weapon to shoot with around, or our melee brute when he poured his whole wealth into a power armor because he doesn't use it any other way and wants the power trip but the armor is never appropriate.

[Mystral]

No fighter in their right mind walks around without at least a melee weapon and a buckler. Armor can be enchanted to quickly appear or turn into normal clothing, so the fighter can have such a suit of armor, if not as his main armor than as an emergency backup for just such a situation.

Really, if you have some kind of alchemistical, zombie creating, chimera-stiching villain as your pen pal, feeling secure is suicidal.

That said, in such a situation, there is no reason for a fighter to go around unarmed. He's in a tavern, so look at that, right above the fireplace there's an old shield and a masterwork longsword mounted on the wall. A bit dusty, but still sharp. Problem solved.

[Spore]

That said, in such a situation, there is no reason for a fighter to go around unarmed. He's in a tavern, so look at that, right above the fireplace there's an old shield and a masterwork longsword mounted on the wall. A bit dusty, but still sharp. Problem solved.

I have - sadly - found that DMs usually don't describe environments anymore. And I feel like asking "Is there any weapon mounted on the wall" with the DM responding with pity in his eyes: "Ah yes of course there is." feels just like that.

Pity.

[Mystral]

I have - sadly - found that DMs usually don't describe environments anymore. And I feel like asking "Is there any weapon mounted on the wall" with the DM responding with pity in his eyes: "Ah yes of course there is." feels just like that.

Pity.Well, if you plan for your big bad to ambush the tavern, you'll have to describe it anyway and draw a floor plan. Might as well think ahead.

I'd mention the thing in passing while describing the tavern. Maybe have the inkeeper talk about his good old days before he got an arrow in the knee. If the fighter remembers it, he can grab it in the first round. Otherwise, there are perception checks that get easier every round.

[Knaight]

Some of this is system side - if there's an actual incentive to using tools that aren't weapons and armor (e.g. getting bonuses to social skills for showing up in clothes appropriate to a social situation), you don't tend to see the same effect. There's also the matter of scene length, where being useless in a scene that takes five minutes is a total non-issue, and being useless in a scene that takes an hour and a half is a problem. This ties directly into combat, as fights are by far the scene most likely to take an hour and a half. That said, it can crop up elsewhere; Shadowrun's hacking system comes to mind.

There's also the matter of how, in D&D, the tool use generally doesn't make you better. The lightly armored rogue is just as good in a fight as the heavily armored fighter. There's no tradeoff between being significantly worse in fights where you don't have your equipment and significantly better in fights where you do, you just get the bad without the good.

In differently designed systems, this often doesn't come up. Sticking to combat examples, a science fiction or space fantasy game often supports two very distinct combat archetypes - the soldier and the pilot. In any fight in space, the pilot is going to be better. Everyone is effectively locked into using ships, and while you could choose to just go full jetpack and plasma rifle it's probably a terrible idea - though there are still niches for the soldier, such as boarding actions. Meanwhile on the ground the dynamic is the opposite, where the soldier is generally much more capable than the pilot, though again there are niches where that doesn't necessarily apply, starting with any fight where there's a vehicle around for the pilot to grab. I've seen this consistently work just fine.

I'll grant that some of that is just the inability to bring the relevant tool everywhere. You could wear armor out to the tavern; you're not parking a space ship inside the cantina. Still, lessons could apply here - if you expect there to be a mix of surprise ambushes and fights the PCs go into intentionally, with different equipment, then incentives to actually create this mix and pairing weakness in the ambush with strength in the fight deals with a lot of the game balance issues. It also makes sense - the knight in full regalia they've learned to use absolutely should have an advantage over a thief out of their element, still heavily equipped for battle but not nearly as at home with said equipment.

[Slipperychicken]

Simple fix: Allow every fighter - or equivalent - to wield any large object (bench, small statue, garden tool, frying pan, halfbrick in a sock) as an effective weapon, and any flat object (dumpter lid, serving tray, door - or an unwilling bureaucrat) as a shield.

Simpler fix: Don't make bad things happen to the PCs every time they slip out of their murder gear.


If people were jumping me when I went to bed or stopped for a bite to eat, and then multiple times a week on top of that, then of course I'd never take off my armor and weapon. That's just common sense.

[RazorChain]

This is a problem everywhere, if you get attacked unarmed and your adversaries have weapons then you have problems.

Unless you are Riddick....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16RdEtQL9EQ

[Cespenar]

It's the fault of the system. There are many things that the fighter should be able to do considerably better than his companions with similar attributes, just by being a fighter.

-Grappling
-Situational awareness
-Using improvised weapons effectively
-A reasonable unarmored defense
-Doing more damage with any weapon
-"Maneuvers"

These should be very basic advantages of the fighter over other classes, but all of them are locked behind feats or class features that you could only reasonably get maybe 10% of them if you build it correctly.

[Mr Beer]

People who strap on heavy weapons and armour are going to be at a disadvantage when they are without their heavy weapons and armour. Same as how wizards are screwed without spellbooks and material components.

A fighter should try to have a backup weapon, some kind of concealed torso armour and the ability to disarm mooks barehanded to get a weapon. Combination of relevant abilities and preparation.

Example in a better combat system than D&D (GURPS), an unarmed fighter sees a combat coming, has no weapon but asks if he can use his Fast Draw skill to lift a weapon out an adjacent guard's scabbard. I say yes, at a penalty, he draws the guard's weapon, guard is in trouble.

[Keltest]

Simpler fix: Don't make bad things happen to the PCs every time they slip out of their murder gear.


If people were jumping me when I went to bed or stopped for a bite to eat, and then multiple times a week on top of that, then of course I'd never take off my armor and weapon. That's just common sense.

I agree with this. Forcing the PCs to operate without all their shiny magic equipment can be an interesting challenge, but its definitely not something that should happen to them spontaneously or frequently. If you want to have their arch-nemesis attack them while theyre getting lunch in a tavern, instead of having a minion rampage, do something like set the tavern on fire. Fighter McSwordington's huge muscles and mighty constitution will be of far more use in making sure everybody gets out alive in that scenario, where he can lift things and smash stuff without the need for gear, and getting hit in the face with a burning beam barely slows him down.