11 replies to this topic

[RJMooreII]

Aside from GURPS (and maybe Rollmaster, er, Rolemaster) most RPGs I see have really stupid nonsensical rules for armor. The typical outline (of which D&D is a perfect example) divides armor up into a few completely brain-dead categories based on imaginary weight/incumberance. I.E. leather is light, chain and scale medium, plate heavy. This is also true in Barbarians of Lemuria, and I am going to re-write the armor rules because they're wrong, all wrong.

Full plate is lighter, more flexible and provides better protection and comfort than any other full-metal armor. The later suits of full plate are lighter, harder and stronger than the earlier suits. The downside to plate, primarily, is that it requires technology and costs a lot. It's also slightly warmer than chainmail from a thermal management perspective. It is, in almost every conceivable sense, superior. And the reason is obvious: it's higher tech. Superior design, superior metallurgy.

Chainmail is heavy, sometimes almost twice as heavy as some suits of plate. It slows the Hell out of you. However it is not very noisy.

Real leather armor (as opposed to leather clothes) is lightweight, but it can restrict your movements. It is usually boiled or laminated or layered. It's very bulky for the protection it gives, and a true 'full suit' of leather armor would be bulkier than plate in many ways. It also gives crap for protection, at most catching glancing blows.

Scale/lamellar armor just plain sucks. It's heavy, even heavier when it gets wet, it's as noisy as a drawer full of spoons and it offers inferior protection to chain or plate armor because the scales and plates not only come off they also don't even protect against a thrust from a direction counter to their layering.

I mean, really. It's been, what, almost 40 years since D&D came out? Can we please get some logical rules for armor? Why do things need to be 'balanced'? Why can't plate armor just be generally superior but ass-expensive? Why can't lamellar just be used by people with crap armor technology? The idea that chain, lamellar, and plate should be 'balanced' is like expecting a handgunne to be balanced with a Kalashnikov rifle. The former is just older, crappier and inferior; though easier to produce if you don't have the capital and technique for the latter.

If they want to 'balance' it they should just make plate armor expensive and regionally available. Because everywhere it was known, except for very hot environments, plate replaced chain as fast as people could afford to make it. Even the Japanese were adopting European-style plate armor before firearms made it moot.

Edited by RJMooreII, 10 July 2012 - 11:47 AM.

[Kortoso]

I don't know of many examples of actual leather armor. Perhaps that's because it was used by the lower classes, and rarely survives the centuries.

REH remarks on how Conan knows how to walk in chainmail to keep it from making noise. It's not really noisy; that's plate armor.

One disadvantage to plate is you need help putting it on. Perhaps that's why we see men-at-arms still wearing mail when they could get plate.

[Officer Aggro]

It always made sense to me, but I suppose it really comes down to what period they're using as reference for the armor and to what extent. From my own experience watching men fighting in plate armor, they do seem significantly slower than a guy wearing only mail. For D&D 3.5, the armor check penalty for full plate is only one worse than that for chainmail, and the speed rate is the same. A person wearing light or no armor really should be able to run or walk faster than someone in heavier armor, so that speed stat always seemed logical to me. The full plate costs 1500 gold, whereas the chain is only 150. So the full plate really is expensive, but for the protection it provides, it's far superior - +8 to armor class vs +5 for chain. Maybe all of it doesn't make perfect sense, but for the gaming statistics, it needs to be fair and balanced.

[TiriusBanner]

I completely agree with you, RJMoorel. Video games and RPGs make some utterly retarded choices about weapons and armor. And I can confirm that most of what you said is true, since I'm a history buff as well.

That's mostly because people generally know jack s*** about medieval and antique weaponry. Not everyone is a history buff, after all. What bugs me the most, tough, is how ridiculous those suits of armor look, especially in modern RPGs. Colorful, over-the-top decorative, and utterly useless, should you try to use it in real life. It has countless spikes and blades on it, I'd be surprised if you didn't poke your own eye out. It's the same with weaponry, I'm afraid...

But I do have to add a few things to what you said about all those suits of armor...

Leather - It was a primary material for making combat gear for centuries. I'm not talking about armors, I'm talking about gloves, boots, belts, bags, sheaths, saddles... As for the armor, well, would you believe me that there are actually very few evidence of such a thing even existing? Leather was used mostly in combination with other, more resilient materials, such as iron or (as metallurgy progressed) steel. It was used to make scale or lamellar armor, for example. Also, during the medieval times it was used to make clothes that, you guessed it, soldiers wore into battle. That's probably how we got stuck with "leather armor" cliche. Yes, that leather varied in thickness, sturdiness and quality, but it never made for a good armor material. Sturdy leather (the one that would actually make good armor material) is extremely uncomfortable and restricts your movement, so you'd be better off with a good shield then leather armor. It can offer some protection from minor slashing attacks, such as with a knife, or from biting dogs. But that's it. Leather armor existed mostly in the minds of D&D players and movie makers.

Chain - Another example of misunderstood armor. During the later medieval period it was worn under the plate armor to offer additional protection, but by itself it was used mostly to offer protection from slashing. Against arrows and piercing atacks it didn't fare too well, just like leather. Depending on the quality of material it was made of, it's prices varied. It was prone to rusting, and would tear easily after it got damaged. It was worn mostly over your regular clothes.

Scale/lamellar - Now here's something that every good Viking had in his closet! This type of armor appears a lot throughout the history. It was worn by Scythians, Parthians, Germans, Chinese... Mostly because it was very low-tech and easier to mass produce then later medieval plate armor. You basically take leather clothes and attach scales or plates of metal in such a way they interwine, imitating lizard's skin or something... Simple, but surprisingly effective. It was as difficult to clean as chain armor, and metal plates fell off easily if damaged, but it actually has some good physics to back it up. It's interwining metal scales offered better protection against arrows and piercing attacks then the chain armor (but still not as good as video games would have you believe). It also offered decent protection against slashing attacks that came from above. And most of these attacks came from above.

Keep in mind that we're talking about medieval period here. Swords were longer, broader and heavier then the swords of Roman period. They were made for hacking rather then stabbing, and an average medieval soldier was very poorly trained by today's (or even Roman) standards. So they didn't really know how to stab properly, they just kept hacking, in accordance with their primal instincts.

That slowly changed with the introduction of more professional European armies that offered better training, but that's another topic...

Every armor is a bit heavy, sure, but full plate armor was the heaviest. And that's a fact. Yes, it got lighter and more comfortable as time went by, but it was heavy none the less. That's why it was used mostly by heavy cavalry. Also, we need to keep in mind that...

EVERY ARMOR WAS PRONE TO RUSTING AND HAD TO BE MAINTAINED REGULARLY,
VERY, VERY FEW (IF ANY) BATTLE-WORTHY FULL PLATE ARMORS SURVIVED THE TEST OF TIME. THOSE THAT SURVIVED WERE MOSTLY CEREMONIAL SETS OF ARMOR WORN IN SPECIAL OCCASIONS, OR DECORATIVE REPLICAS.
QUALITY OF ARMOR AND ARMOR MATERIAL DID NOT GRADUALLY PROGRESS FROM CRAPPY TO GOOD, LIKE IN WORLD OF WARCRAFT. TECHNOLOGY, MATERIAL QUALITY AND CRAFTMANSHIP VARIED FROM PERIOD TO PERIOD.

Let's hope video game developers will read this topic

Edited by TiriusBanner, 19 September 2012 - 09:43 PM.

[Waldgeist]

In the end most RPGs are not about realism. They are about gameplay and game design. You built up a clear hierarchy of materials from which items are made, because it's easier to design, easier to play. RPG is not real world simulation, it's a guideline, a constraint in which the players can act, adding the randomness of the dice for tension and taking the minute-to-minute results out of the game masters hand for social freedom.

Yes it's not logical, but what is? Even when it comes to what kind of weaponry is superior to which, you get many different answers from different people. Ask historians, they give you one answer, ask experimental archaeologist, they give you another, ask re-enactors and you get even more people saying even more different things.

If you start by arguing about the superiority of certain armour, then you get into a very sketchy area. Because then you'd have to take into account the different types of weapons and how they play against each other and, in this case more importantly, against certain types of armour. For ever advancement in armour technology, there was one in weaponry. But sometimes that advancement produced a weapon that was particularly effective against a specific type of armour, but would not be very effective against an older armour tech. Etc.

In short: It's a can of worms, that when opened just complicates things and doesn't add any fun to the equation of role-"playing".

Edited by Waldgeist, 22 September 2012 - 10:20 AM.

[Ironhand]

Here's a couple of experiences I had with table-top RPG's.

When I first began playing D&D as a total newbie, I had already been in the SCA a few years, with a few years of fighting experience plus some actual historical research. To the other gamers, with more gaming experience than I had, it seemed to them that I had a phenomenal talent for "guessing" the correct weapon to use against opponents in various types of armor. I knew nothing of the GM's numerical tables of hit percentages and damage points. I was just going by my knowlege of arms and armor - and it worked.

Years later, I played with a GM who actually knew more than I did about arms and armor - he was a well-respected armorer in the SCA. He made very slight modifications to the pre-existing combat tables, and it worked great.

Edited by Ironhand, 23 September 2012 - 07:25 AM.

[constantine]

There have been many false assumptions about armor in RPGs, but it is not incorrect to say that full plate armor could be heavy and problematic for movement. Numerous descriptions of late medieval battles show such examples, that is with real people fighting in actual battles. That doesn't preclude armor types that cause even more difficulties in mobility.

What I deemed as a problem in many RPGs (especially those following the D&D mindset) was the ruling that the heavier the armor the more difficult for the wearer to be hit at all. That practically means that unless one has good armor or magical protection (items, spells), he can't stand long in a good fight. In short, adios amigo if you're in loincloth or so. Which is how some Howardian characters often get into action, including Conan.

Fortunately, Mongoose tackled this problem in a rather satisfying manner. Individual defensive capacities are based on haw good a character is (class level, ability stats), while armor adds a damage reduction factor. The result is quite decent, with high-level lightly armored characters being able to deal successfully against opponents of low capabilities/levels. It goes without saying that armor is still very important in a fight, but rogue-type characters (or those who chose to go light for a specific adventure etc.) don't feel like lambs for the slaughter.

Bottom line though, an RPG is a game and some realism has to be sacrificed for playability.

[Ironhand]

In some of the systems that I have played in, light or no armor makes you hard to hit, but if you are hit, you take full or almost full damage. If you are well armored, you are easier to hit, but you get to subtract a sizeable amount of damage. This also is affected by the weapon used.

Edited by Ironhand, 24 September 2012 - 07:25 AM.

[Lunatic]

In some rpg´s boiled leather armor is popular amongst sailors. I am guessing because of the rust. But would it catch air and float for a while? Just wondering.

Also in many games there are no "exhaustion" rules. Whoever you are, if you pack 25kg of gear on youre back, you will get tired much faster. With arms like lead in the final combatround, movement perhaps should be restricted.

[Boot]

I like the armor rules in the Conan RPG (a d20 based game with a semi-different combat and armor system).

First off, characters have three basic Armor Classes. Looking at a 4th level Cimmerian Barbarian with a 16 STR and 15 DEX, he would have a base AC 10. This is used when he's not aware of a blow and not doing anything actively to protect himself. The base AC is always AC 10.

Then, there's a Dodge AC. This is made of the Base AC added to a level modifier and a DEX modifier. The 4th level Barbarian--let's call him Cael--would have Dodge AC 15. That's the base of 10 + 3 points due to his level + 2 points due to his DEX.

If you use Dodge as your defense, you cannot be hemmed in on all sides. Otherwise, you take a -2 penalty to your Dodge. You need a certain amount of room to Dodge--if you're completely surrounded by foes, or they've got you backed up to a wall, it's harder to get out of the way of their blows.

And, Dodge is the only type of active defense against certain kinds of attacks. For example, when faced against a foe in melee combat, you can Dodge or Parry, but if someone throws a spear at you or fires a crossbow your way, then Dodge is your only option.



The remaining defense type is to Parry. Your base is AC 10, and your normal Parry AC is made up your base + STR modifier + level modifier. Cael, above, would have Parry AC 14. That's 10 points from the base + 3 points from STR + 1 point from the character's class.





The shield can be used to dodge missile weapons, in which case the +3 Shield bonus is added to your Dodge AC, since you can't parry arrows. Cael's Shield + Dodge would be AC 18

If you just want to use the shield traditionally to block incoming blows, then you would add the +3 shield modifier gained by the target to your Parry defense. Cael woull be AC 17 using his shield with a Parry defense routine.

Or, maybe, you want to use your shield to bash your oppoenent, using the shield as a weaon. If so, your default Dodge or Parry ACs are used.




This brings us to armor. In the Conan RPG, armor does not make the character harder to hit. Armor, instead, soaks up damage.

Weapons have penetration rating. And a character has two basic was to have a melee fight. The character can just basically bash away at his foe, old school stye. Or the character can fight smarter and attempt to by-pass his foe's armor and strike at the soft or non-armored pars

For example, let's say Cael's foe, a Vanir raider, has a mail hauberk. This piece of armor is capable of absorbing 6 points of damage.





Let's take a look at how this works...

Cael is using a Broadsword that is rated at AP 3. Add to this Cael's STR modifier, and the weapon, with Cael swinging it, is rated at AP 6.

So, if Cael hits a Vanir raider with this weapon, it will penetrate his opponent's mail hauberk. If total AP is equal to or greater than the armor's Damage Resistance, then DR is halved.

Thus, Cael would roll damage but remove 3 points from that damage roll to simulate the partial protection from the armor. Damage would be 1d10 -3.



If total Armor Piercing + STR mod does not equal or exceed the DR rating of the armor, then the total DR rating is removed from damage (simulating better protection). Thus, if the Vanir also wore a helm, his total Damage Resistance would increase to DR 7. And, this would mean that, on any hit, Cael would do damage equal to 1d10 -6.



Now, if Cael found that he was connecting a lot but not doing a lot of damage to the Vanir (Cael can only put 1-4 points of damage on the Vanir, and 60% of the blows he does land end up dealing no damage at all), then he could change fighting styles. Instead of the typical freestyle of bashing through armor, he can be more picky and attempt to hit the Vanir's weak spots--at the throat, under the arm, in between armor plates and the unarmored areas.

In this case, Cael uses his DEX as a to-hit modifier on his attack roll in place of his STR modifier. And, to account for how much harder it is to specifically target and hit locations on the Vanir foe, the DR rating is used as a measure of how well Cael landed his blows.

For example, let's say that the Vanir is Parrying at AC 15, and the Vanir is using a large shield. That makes him AC 19. Cael has to roll 6 points over that needed in order to land a Finesse hit.

That means.... A roll of 1-9 misses the target. A roll of 10-19 is parried by the Vanir. A roll of 20-24 hits, but armor is used to reduce damage. And, at a roll of 25+, Cael has successfully landed a Finesse blow.

Successful Finesse blows completely ignore armor--full damage is applied to the target--since the whole point of a Finesse attack is to land a blow where the foe is not protected by armor.



Now, I realize that this seems very complicated. Like anything else, it's easy and second nature once you've played it a couple of times. And, I really think that this combat system is a lot more realistic than your typical fantasy games.

There are piecemeal armor rules, too, so that you can find some (little) protection from small pieces of armor.

For example, I rolled up a character for my game last night that had several armor options:

ARMOR
Bracers = DR 1
Bracers + Helm = DR 2

Mantle = DR 2
Mantle + Helm = DR 3

Winter Clothing = DR 3 (+7 Max DEX)
Winter Clothing + Helm = DR 4 (+7 Max DEX)

Mail Hauberk = DR 6 (+3 Max DEX, -4 Armor Check Penalty)
Mail Hauberk + Helm = DR 7 (+3 Max DEX, -4 Armor Check Penalty)

If this character wears his leather wrist bracers, he's got a DR 1 rating. Add a helm to that, and he's DR 2.

A mantle is a large, heavy Cimmerian cloak. This provides some armor protection. Wearing it with or without the bracers yields protection of DR 3. With the helm, it's DR 4.

Thick winter clothing can provide armor equivalent to a quilted jerkin, thus when all bundled up, this character is DR 4 and DR 5 with the helm.

Getting some formal armor, this character also owns a mail hauberk. He doesn't like to wear it often because the mail is heavy on the shoulders and may cause fatigue if worn too long. But, when he is wearing it, he's DR 6 and DR 7 with the helm.



I'm sure there are other ways of using armor in games, but I do like the depth of this one.

[Cheomesh]

There's a bit of misinformation a few posts above, but I can't quite have the time right yet to fulfill it.

For game systems I just stick with GURPS. I tried the Mongoose D20 and while I generally like it, we ended up sliding back to GURPS before we even began.

M.

[turko]

In defense of D&D, page 9 of the DMG states:

"Of the two approaches to hobby games today, one is best defined as the realism-simulation school and the other as the game school. AD&D is assuredly an adherent of the latter school. It does not stress any realism (in the author's opinion an absured effort at best considering the topic!). It does little to attempt to simulate anything either....AD&D is designed to be an amusing and diverting pastime....but in no case something to be taken too seriously."