Sell me on what make 5e better than pathfinder

[Mara]

I've already told you I would do just this for repeated spell casting (mirror image every 30 seconds definately qualifies)



Mara, If a PC lifted his maximum lifting amount in front of him (arms extended) could he do this for an hour, with no exhaustion?

The rules say nothing on the topic. So this is OK for you right?

Why would the player do that? How does that relate to wearing armor as a highly train warrior with super human strength?

[Malifice]

Why would the player do that?

A feat of strength. The character holds his maximum lifting capacity out in front of his body for an hour.

The rules allow him to do it with no disadvantage. Would you?

How does that relate to wearing armor as a highly train warrior with super human strength?

Assuming the PC's strength is 20 or less, it isnt superhuman.

[Naanomi]

Note that dwarves racially are not slowed by armor and I generally allow them to wear armor all day because of it (and their culture is fine with it).

Likewise Orcs or other monsterous/militaristic humanoids probably don't have the same social difficulties of wearing armor as humans do

[Malifice]

Note that dwarves racially are not slowed by armor and I generally allow them to wear armor all day because of it (and their culture is fine with it).

For sure. A Dwarf PC that has 'Iron is my second skin. I never remove it' would be an intresting quirk.

Of course, I would impose disadvantage on many social skill checks (barring intimidate!) from the smell alone, and also on athletics checks made to swim and climb, and also call for the occasional DC 10 Con save (probably with advantage due to his background) to sleep with the crap on without gaining a level of exhaustion.

And I would award him inspiration every time the above occured, and it was roleplayed accordingly. ('Ye weak longshanks, harden up! Showers and cladding yerself in fabric are the stuff of elves!")

My argument isnt with characters always wearing armor as a rule. Its just an example of a trait I find ridiculous. PC's not portrating their characters as real people.

This is a roleplaying game for Petes sake.

[Milo v3]

Of course, I would impose disadvantage on some many social skill checks (barring intimidate!) from the smell alone, and also on athletics checks made to swim and climb, and also call for the occasional DC 10 Con save (probably with advantage due to his background) to sleep with the crap on without gaining a level of exhaustion.

1. Why wouldn't he bathe/prestidigitate himself clean?
2. Doesn't he already take an athletics penalty for wearing armour to begin with?

This is a roleplaying game for Petes sake.

And no one has said anything that suggests they aren't roleplaying.

[EggKookoo]

I agree with Malifice in that "PC wearing armor all the time" is less a symptom of bad player behavior and more a symptom of bad DM behavior.

[Malifice]

1. Why wouldn't he bathe/prestidigitate himself clean?

He's a Dwarf in full plate with the quirk 'I never remove my armor'. I assumed he was a warrior type. He could arguably prestidigitate himself clean (if he wanted too). That would ameliorate his social penalties somewhat.

Doesn't he already take an athletics penalty for wearing armour to begin with?

By default no. Not if he's proficient in it.

And no one has said anything that suggests they aren't roleplaying.

Yes they have. Mara was talking about a Wizard casting mirror image every 30 seconds because there is 'no mechanical reason not to' which got us here in the first place. I raised the issue that this is absurd as a character that spends his downtime relaxing in full plate and visored helmet becuase there 'is no mechanical reason not to'.

My point being that a real person would almost always look forward to getting back to town from the dungeon/ adventure, removing his armor, dropping his pack off, having a bath and getting a hot meal into him.

As a soldier, I can assure you this is the case!

Have you ever hiked the Andes or Himalayas? After trecking all day, dropping your pack off and putting your feet up is bliss.

The point isnt about armor expicitly; its about portraying your character as a real person, even to their mechanical detriment.

I agree with Malifice in that "PC wearing armor all the time" is less a symptom of bad player behavior and more a symptom of bad DM behavior.

Yeah exactly. I get the feeling that players are reluctant to portray real people due to jerk DM's more than anything else.

This is not to say that I havent had my PC attacked while he was out of armor, or otherwise been placed in peril for (for example) going off to sleep with an attractive NPC (even though I the player pretty much knew she was an assassin or antagonist NPC) all for legitimate plot reasons. But I've never found myself in a campaign where my DM starts rubbing his hands together and throwing monsters at me the instant I take armor off, go to sleep, play my flaws or alignment, or just throws waves of attractive female assassins at me to take advantage of the flaw 'My character is a sucker for a pretty face' or just to punish other roleplaying activity.

[Milo v3]

He's a Dwarf in full plate with the quirk 'I never remove my armor'. I assumed he was a warrior type. He could arguably prestidigitate himself clean (if he wanted too). That would ameliorate his social penalties somewhat.

I took "I never remove my armour" to be "I effectively never remove my armour". Also, why only somewhat.

Yes they have. Mara was talking about a Wizard casting mirror image every 30 seconds because there is 'no mechanical reason not to' which got us here in the first place. I raised the issue that this is absurd as a character that spends his downtime relaxing in full plate and visored helmet becuase there 'is no mechanical reason not to'.

You can do those things and still roleplay. You can actually completely ignore things like rations and cleaning, and roleplay. Not everyone plays D&D as the sims.

My point being that a real person would almost always look forward to getting back to town from the dungeon/ adventure, removing his armor, dropping his pack off, having a bath and getting a hot meal into him.

Bull. I've made a character who 1. didn't look forward to getting back into town since he had to deal with attacks. 2. never removed his armour. 3. never had a bath. And I roleplayed the hell out of him and all of it was internally consistent. He did enjoy hot meals though.

[JAL_1138]

Do you know how many things could be a monster in (what would look to be) a typical bedroom in an inn?


Partial, incomplete list:
*The mirror (Fetch)
*The bedsheet (Sheet Phantom)
*The cedar chest, dresser, bedframe, etc. (Mimic)
*The ornamental sword on the wall (Xaver or Tarsardar)
*The water in the tin bath (Water Weird or Crystal Ooze)
*The clothes the last lodger left, or the bathrobe, pillowcases, towels, etc. (Ragymoffyn, Cloaker, Executioner's Hood)
*The wall (Living Wall)
*The floor (Trapper)
*The ceiling (Lurker)
*The little patch of mold in the bathing-room (Brown Mold, Green Slime, etc.)
*The copper piece someone left behind (Lock Lurker)
*The completely empty corner (Invisible Stalker, Thought Eater, etc)
*The inn itself (House Hunter Mimic)

You'd have to be crazy or suicidal to go in there, man. The only safe place to sleep is a Leomund's Tiny Hut with glyphs set up around it and Alarm spells up. And have a watch rotation anyway.

[Safety Sword]

Do you know how many things could be a monster in (what would look to be) a typical bedroom in an inn?


Partial, incomplete list:
*The mirror (Fetch)
*The bedsheet (Sheet Phantom)
*The cedar chest, dresser, bedframe, etc. (Mimic)
*The ornamental sword on the wall (Xaver or Tarsardar)
*The water in the tin bath (Water Weird or Crystal Ooze)
*The clothes the last lodger left, or the bathrobe, pillowcases, towels, etc. (Ragymoffyn, Cloaker, Executioner's Hood)
*The wall (Living Wall)
*The floor (Trapper)
*The ceiling (Lurker)
*The little patch of mold in the bathing-room (Brown Mold, Green Slime, etc.)
*The copper piece someone left behind (Lock Lurker)
*The completely empty corner (Invisible Stalker, Thought Eater, etc)
*The inn itself (House Hunter Mimic)

You'd have to be crazy or suicidal to go in there, man. The only safe place to sleep is a Leomund's Tiny Hut with glyphs set up around it and Alarm spells up. And have a watch rotation anyway.

JAL_1138: Founding Member of the Paranoid Adventurer's Guild.

[JAL_1138]

JAL_1138: Founding Member of the Paranoid Adventurer's Guild.

May I sig this?

[Malifice]

I took "I never remove my armour" to be "I effectively never remove my armour".

It would be more intresting with the bathing thing IMO:)

Also, why only somewhat.

Armor isnt socially appropriate for all situations.

Walk into a bank, create an internet dating profile, or audition for Americas got Talent while wearing a bullet proof vest and a bike helmet.

Let me know how you get on.

You can do those things and still roleplay. You can actually completely ignore things like rations and cleaning, and roleplay. Not everyone plays D&D as the sims.

For sure. My debate was more along the lines of taking umbrage at Mara's incredibly gamist comment of 'There is no reason not to cast Mirror image every 30 seconds'. My retort was that 'this is ridiculous, no real person would ever do such a thing'.

Even if he was some kind of a disturbed fethishist with high level OCD that could wave his arms and chant out a spell every minute of every day (and had been portrayed as such for the prior 18 levels), Im fairly sure in the real world, his mates would tell him to shut the hell up after a few minutes or so, and everyone would treat him as being stark raving mad.

Anything less is almost invariably poor characterisation.

I've made a character who 1. didn't look forward to getting back into town since he had to deal with attacks. 2. never removed his armour. 3. never had a bath. And I roleplayed the hell out of him and all of it was internally consistent. He did enjoy hot meals though.

And I said above that such a trait on a character would be fun to play (although it would generally be the exception, rather than the norm). I would have no problem awarding you inspiration every time you had your bad smell get in the way of a social encounter, or informed me that your armor gave you disadvantage in a situation.

I would also expect the other PC's to make comments about your bad smell ('Leave the dwarf outside, he stinks!).

By the way, what do you mean by: 1. didn't look forward to getting back into town since he had to deal with attacks?

[JoeJ]

JAL_1138: Founding Member of the Paranoid Adventurer's Guild.

Yes he's paranoid. But is he paranoid enough?

[Milo v3]

And I said above that such a trait on a character would be fun to play (although it would generally be the exception, rather than the norm). I would have no problem awarding you inspiration every time you had your bad smell get in the way of a social encounter, or informed me that your armor gave you disadvantage in a situation.

I would also expect the other PC's to make comments about your bad smell ('Leave the dwarf outside, he stinks!).

He never got any problems in social encounters as a result of those things because I mitigated them completely. Used magic to clean himself, his armour had the glamour enchantment so there was never a situation were it looked out of place and even when it wasn't glamoured his armour was considered a symbol, he could wear it to sleep because it was clothe armour that reshaped itself in accordance to the glamour enchantment. Do I still get inspiration? I mean, if I roleplay a character without being an idiot you shouldn't be Less rewarded than the person roleplaying to the same degree in a different direction.

By the way, what do you mean by: 1. didn't look forward to getting back into town since he had to deal with attacks?

When in civilization he had to deal with people attacking him because of his large political ties, his vast wealth, technical expertise causing people wanting to kidnap him and force him to make magic items for them, him being the leader of a faction, etc. Towns were not safe. For godsake last time that character went into town one of his cohorts was killed in a single attack by the best assassin the setting. Only reason he even goes into civilisation is for political meetings, PR, and business deals.

[Malifice]

He never got any problems in social encounters as a result of those things because I mitigated them completely. Used magic to clean himself, his armour had the glamour enchantment so there was never a situation were it looked out of place and even when it wasn't glamoured his armour was considered a symbol, he could wear it to sleep because it was clothe armour that reshaped itself in accordance to the glamour enchantment.

So you had glamored armor, that was as supple and comfortable as pyjamas, that you could make look like whatever it wanted, and were able to bathe yourself without taking it off?

How are you not seeing this as a corner case that proves what I've been saying all along?

When in civilization he had to deal with people attacking him because of his large political ties, his vast wealth, technical expertise causing people wanting to kidnap him and force him to make magic items for them, him being the leader of a faction, etc. Towns were not safe. For godsake last time that character went into town one of his cohorts was killed in a single attack by the best assassin the setting. Only reason he even goes into civilisation is for political meetings, PR, and business deals.

Seeing as you were in an extreme corner case of 'your armor looked like whatever you wanted, and was as comfortable to wear as normal clothes' I dont blame you for never taking it off.

You literally had no reason not to, barring sex, repairs to the armor or going to the toilet.

[Naanomi]

Wearing armor all the time is inappropriate in *human* social encounters; who knows about other races? Do mountain dwarves consider everyone horribly indecent for not wearing steel? Complain their teenagers are only wearing chain mail? Save studded leather only for the most adventuresome in the bedroom?

[Safety Sword]

May I sig this?

Of course.

[Malifice]

Wearing armor all the time is inappropriate in *human* social encounters; who knows about other races? Do mountain dwarves consider everyone horribly indecent for not wearing steel? Complain their teenagers are only wearing chain mail? Save studded leather only for the most adventuresome in the bedroom?

No argument from me. Heck, appearing in an audience in front of the Orc chieftan, armed to the teeth, while naked and drenched in blood, probably grants you advantage on your social skill checks.

The Elven Court? Not so much.

[JAL_1138]

Of course.

Thank you!

No argument from me. Heck, appearing in an audience in front of the Orc chieftan, armed to the teeth, while naked and drenched in blood, probably grants you advantage on your social skill checks.

The Elven Court? Not so much.

Appearing in front of the elven court as a thri-kreen with a bottle of ketchup is probably a bad idea, then...

[Safety Sword]

Yes he's paranoid. But is he paranoid enough?

Just because you think they're out to get you, it doesn't mean they're not out to get you.

[Malifice]

Appearing in front of the elven court as a thri-kreen with a bottle of ketchup is probably a bad idea, then...

The elven court look at you intently (makes insight check) and nervously start backing away...

[goto124]

I'm on the side of Rule of Fun. Details get glossed over because it's just not that kind of game where you want to deal with fiddly things.

[JAL_1138]

Yes he's paranoid. But is he paranoid enough?

If you're high enough level, put the Tiny Hut in a Demiplane and Nystul it into nondetectability.

And still post a watch.

[Malifice]

I'm on the side of Rule of Fun. Details get glossed over because it's just not that kind of game where you want to deal with fiddly things.

I heard exactly the same arguments in Pathfinder, by dudes that would meticulouly spend 15 minutes tallying up bonues from a dozen different sources on each attack, every single round.

Ask em to tick off a ration every day, usually at the end of the session and suddenly 'it's too much bookkeeping'.

Now if I gave them a +1 to hit when on a full stomach, then it would be a totally different story.

Murderhobism 101.

[Malifice]

If you're high enough level, put the Tiny Hut in a Demiplane and Nystul it into nondetectability.

And still post a watch.

Dont forget to dominate the watchmen first.

Its those closest to you you have to be the most cautious of.

Also; your party could have been infiltrated by dopplegangers. You can never be too sure.

[JoeJ]

I generally take my cue from the genre conventions of whatever kind of setting and adventure I'm running. If the party is just stopping in town to resupply before the next wilderness trek, I probably won't even bother asking what the PCs are wearing. If they are errant knights in shining armor, there will be servants helping them disarm every time they stop at a castle; but only in the rarest of instances would anybody dream of violating the rules of hospitality by attacking a guest while they're defenseless. If it's mostly an urban campaign I will enforce social penalties for wearing metal armor or carrying large weapons inappropriately, and NPCs will be similarly limited in their equipment. And in that setting the players would also know going in that Dexterity will probably be a better investment than Strength, and I'd remind them that certain feats, like Dual Wielder or Defensive Duelist, can help their defenses.

[Xetheral]

I agree. When adventuring or in danger, a person wears his armor.

When back in town relaxing, he doesnt.

Sure, in my games sometimes part of the party has some spare time, and they can and do remove their armor for whatever leisure activities they choose to pursue, so long as they don't consider themselves to be in danger.

If a DM takes that precise moment to attack the PC every time he takes his armor off, he's being a poor DM. Thats not the issue here. Its that (unless youre portraying some kind of quirk of 'never removes his armor') you're being a poor player by never taking it off. It is unrealistic in the extreme.

Does your character not shower or bathe? Go to the toilet? Make love to his partner? Does he just chill out in the tavern in town wearing full plate, lifting his visor to drink and eat, and takign 5 minutes to remove his front plates to have a wee every 20 minutes? It's patently absurd.

There's a lot of D&D that is unrealistic, and different aspects of its realism are more important to some players than others. Just because a player has no interest in portraying armor realistically does not in any way make them a "poor player".

No, that doesnt follow at all. This is actually an example of conformation bias.

Hardly. I'm knowingly making a flavor-only inference about how the game world works (beyond the rules text) in order to better harmonize my sense of realism and my sense of what makes a good game. I don't even see how you think I'm making a claim to which the concept of confirmation bias is even relevant.

Calm down dude. 6-7 encoutners per adventuring day. They dont get 6-7 encounters per day of downtime. Maybe your PC's are wearing full plate when crafting items, running a buisiness, doing research down the local library and so forth, but mine dont (unless it's some kind of trait that is pecualiar to that PC).

Play your damn character is all Im saying. Not some mindless automaton.

I apologize if I came across as strident, that was not my intent.

My games have very little true downtime. Except for long-duration projects (which don't happen often), every day is an adventuring day. On many of them there isn't any combat at all (particularly when traveling since I don't use random encounters), but there is still a very high chance that the characters will find themselves in a fight for their lives. They're almost never "off-duty", so to speak.

Consider the example of police officers on the street in major metropolitan areas who are required to wear kevlar vests at all times while on duty, despite the fact that most of them will never be shot at in their entire career. Now compare the level of threat faced by those officers to the level of threat faced by adventurers in my world, who frequently are in a fight for their lives. And the finally compare the level of threat faced by adventurers in my world, to the level of threat faced by adventurers in your world, where their lives are regularly in danger half-a-dozen-times per adventuring day.

Given that I find it reasonable for adventurers to want to be constantly armored in my world, can you see why I find it mind-boggling that in your world (one much more violent than my own) you'd find it implausible that adventurers wouldn't want to remove their armor every chance they get?

Although, if your game is sharply delimited between a few frenzy-of-encounters days interspersed between plentiful downtime days, your position starts to make more sense to me. For one thing, it means your world isn't necessarily more violent than mine, you just concentrate all the danger into more intense parcels. (Although that makes me question even more how you manage 5-7 encounters per day, unless somehow they're all thematically linked to each other. Otherwise, how do you justify multiple unrelated groups of antagonists threatening the party all on the same adventuring day, but never on a downtime day?)

No he doesnt. He is still down the spells he cast the day before.

For those of us who don't play 5-7 encounters per adventuring day, it's quite likely there will be quite a few spell slots left over.

[Milo v3]

So you had glamored armor, that was as supple and comfortable as pyjamas, that you could make look like whatever it wanted, and were able to bathe yourself without taking it off?

How are you not seeing this as a corner case that proves what I've been saying all along?

Because I did spend 99% of the time with it as it's full armour mode. Even in political functions I walked around with armour in it's true form and the the helmet on, because it was a symbol of my power and prestige. Generally the only time I removed the helmet was too eat.

Seeing as you were in an extreme corner case of 'your armor looked like whatever you wanted, and was as comfortable to wear as normal clothes' I dont blame you for never taking it off.

Not hard to get to be honest, glamor enchantment is sooo cheap. No reason the dwarf couldn't get it or armour that cleans you.

[Lappy9001]

I heard exactly the same arguments in Pathfinder, by dudes that would meticulouly spend 15 minutes tallying up bonues from a dozen different sources on each attack, every single round.

Ask em to tick off a ration every day, usually at the end of the session and suddenly 'it's too much bookkeeping'.

Now if I gave them a +1 to hit when on a full stomach, then it would be a totally different story.

Murderhobism 101.

Well that's fine for those dudes but I highly doubt that situation applies to all or even most Pathfinder players. And even if it does, so what? The game places a heavy emphasis on combat, so those bonuses are very important while personal hygiene isn't and could very well be assumed to be happening anyway. Enforcing those things may warrant another system entirely*

Not that I'm disagreeing with your idea, mind you. I think it sounds fun to keep track of things like bathing and eating. One of my players frequently mentions using Prestidigitation to clean splattered blood off his clothes and bathing. He has fun with it but noone else cares for their characters so I don't enforce it (and I doubt they would have fun if I did)*

But again, I've played in Dark Sun where our rations were essential resources and we received water as treasure rewards with giddy excitement.

*It ultimately just depends on how your group has fun; there are few wrong ways to play

[Malifice]

Because I did spend 99% of the time with it as it's full armour mode. Even in political functions I walked around with armour in it's true form and the the helmet on, because it was a symbol of my power and prestige. Generally the only time I removed the helmet was too eat.


Not hard to get to be honest, glamor enchantment is sooo cheap. No reason the dwarf couldn't get it or armour that cleans you.

Dude, this isnt about the armor.

Its about a character removing it because it's uncomfortable, which yours magically wasnt.

You've got the best of both worlds. A magical suit that you can make look like whatever clothes you want, and is as comfortable as a pair of PJ's.

There's a lot of D&D that is unrealistic, and different aspects of its realism are more important to some players than others. Just because a player has no interest in portraying armor realistically does not in any way make them a "poor player".

ITS NOT ABOUT THE ARMOR!

Jesus man. Its about portraying a realistic character.

My games have very little true downtime. Except for long-duration projects (which don't happen often), every day is an adventuring day. On many of them there isn't any combat at all (particularly when traveling since I don't use random encounters), but there is still a very high chance that the characters will find themselves in a fight for their lives. They're almost never "off-duty", so to speak.

That differs from my games. Life or death battles every single day would render a sane person a quivering mess of PTSD.

Even soldiers dont get in violent life or death combats daily, and they get time off for R+R as much as possible (and I can assure you they look forwards to it).

I struggle to think of a party of 4-5 adventurers (who loot ruins for gold for a living) who have zero intrest in material comforts.

Sounds a little like adventure for adventures sake. While I can get with that as an islolated quirk in a PC, having whole parties of such a trope would be a little jarring.

Consider the example of police officers on the street in major metropolitan areas who are required to wear kevlar vests at all times while on duty, despite the fact that most of them will never be shot at in their entire career. Now compare the level of threat faced by those officers to the level of threat faced by adventurers in my world, who frequently are in a fight for their lives. And the finally compare the level of threat faced by adventurers in my world, to the level of threat faced by adventurers in your world, where their lives are regularly in danger half-a-dozen-times per adventuring day.

For sure bro. If the characters in your game world cant escape constant daily threats on their lives, then by God I expect them to be paranoid, jumpy, PTSD riddled and seriously disturbed individuals (just like I would if a Police officer got himself into a firefight every day or two of his career).

Given that I find it reasonable for adventurers to want to be constantly armored in my world, can you see why I find it mind-boggling that in your world (one much more violent than my own) you'd find it implausible that adventurers wouldn't want to remove their armor every chance they get?

My world is NOT a more violent world. I actually see yours as far more violent. It seems to be literally impossible to escape deadly danger and relax in your world.

Chilling in towns, or civilised lands is generally pretty safe in my campaign. Your greatest risk is a bar fight (and lethal force in one of them gets you thrown in jail for murder by the town guard). Someone might try and mug you. Anyone walking around in armor is probably looking for trouble so would likely get questioned, a close eye put on and possibly harrassed by the town guard at a minimum. Waves of monsters certainly arent rushing out of the stores to attack you.

Now when wandering out of civilised lands to save the princess from the 'Caves of unspeakable Peril' or locating the macguffin artifact of death from the 'Tomb of gloomy doom' or what have you, the adventurers are armed to the teeth, armoured to the hilt, kicking in doors and taking no prisoners. Those days, there are 6-7 encounters a day.

Although, if your game is sharply delimited between a few frenzy-of-encounters days interspersed between plentiful downtime days, your position starts to make more sense to me. For one thing, it means your world isn't necessarily more violent than mine, you just concentrate all the danger into more intense parcels. (Although that makes me question even more how you manage 5-7 encounters per day, unless somehow they're all thematically linked to each other. Otherwise, how do you justify multiple unrelated groups of antagonists threatening the party all on the same adventuring day, but never on a downtime day?)

Exactly. They're linked. Sometimes separated by 10' wide coridoors, deadly traps, and cunning puzzles. Sometimes by winding forest paths through thick brushes. Sometimes its twisting caves. Often they also feature a monolouging BBEG at the end. He or she may even be a recurring charater.

For those of us who don't play 5-7 encounters per adventuring day, it's quite likely there will be quite a few spell slots left over.

Well, youre not playing according to the recomendations of the DMG that the entire game is balanced around. If you move the goalposts, I'm not surprised you get different results.