Hi!

I got an inquiry for everyone knowledgeable  in armor.


I am designing af roleplaying game for me and my friends, and I'm currently working out the combat system. Since I enjoy having quasi-realistic mechanics, I would like to portray a variety of armors and have them represent their real world counterparts' strenghts and weaknesses. The objective is not to reach a perfect simulation, but to end up with a selection of armory that performs differently and somewhat believable.

For the purpose of representing different weapons' (in)efficiency against different armor types, I assign all armor types a defense rating vs. slashing, piercing (thrusting), blunt (impact), and missile weapons (bows, crossbows), listed: S/P/B/M. It is a general assumption of mine that most armor performs best versus slashing weapons, generally bad versus blunt attacks, and worse versus missiles.

Aside from these parametres, I category armor as light, medium, or heavy. In doing so I don't refer to weight specifically, but rather attempt to gauge how hindering the armor would be to your maneuverability. Finally, I have included some notes that I use as a guideline for special rules for each armor. Disregard or comment as you see fit.

Bear in mind that I do not strive for perfect realism. I have to take other factors into account. I am more interested in getting respective strengths straight, rather than absolute numbers. It is all just an abstraction anyway.

New table:

Name---------Price---S/P/B/M---Notes
Light                
Gambeson -----low---1/0/1/1---fragile, flammable
Jack -----------low---1/1/1/0---fragile
Medium
Cuir Bouilli------low---   2/1/0/0
Scale armor   ----low/m---1/1/1/2---loud
Brigandine-------mod---2/2/2/1   
Coat-of-plates---mod---2/2/2/3
Lamellar---------mod---3/2/2/2
Mail-------------mod---3/3/0/3---loud
Heavy
Mail and plates---high----4/3/1/4   ---loud
Field armor-------v.high---5/4/2/4---loud
Tilting armor-----v.high---5/5/3/4---loud, fatigue
[/list]

Renamed plate armor to field armor, renamed full plate to tilting armor
Removed fatigue and loud qualities from lamellar armor
Added flammable to gambeson
Blunt defense +1 on jack, +1 on brigandine, -1 on mail
Missile defense +1 on gambeson, +1 on scale, +1 on brigandine, +2 on Coat-of-plates, +2 on lamellar, +2 on mail, +2 mail and plates, +2 field armor, +2 on tilting armor
Slashing defense on scale armor -1

Longbows and crossbows will gain armor penetrating capabilities. Longbows will ignore 1 point of armor at close range (30m/100feet ?), crossbows 2.

Old table:

Name---------Price---S/P/B/M---Notes
Light                
Gambeson -----low---1/0/1/0---fragile
Jack -----------low---1/1/0/0---fragile
Medium
Cuir Bouilli------low---   2/1/0/0
Scale armor   ----low/m---2/1/1/1---loud
Brigandine-------mod---2/2/1/0   
Coat-of-plates---mod---2/2/2/1
Lamellar---------mod---3/2/2/1---fragile, loud   
Mail-------------mod---3/3/1/1---loud
Heavy
Mail and plates---high----4/3/1/2   ---loud
Field plate-------v.high---5/4/2/2---loud
Full plate--------v.high---5/5/3/2---loud, fatigue
[/list]

For me, nothing there really jumps out as being incorrect - but I'm not an armour expert. I would never have thought of separating missiles from other piercing weapons though I can see some merits in the approach; I'd probably have added an 'armour piercing' type quality to certain weapons instead.

I'm curious as to whether you're thinking of applying armour rating as deflecting blows or mitigating damage, or a bit of both? I'd imagine piercing attacks are more all-or-nothing (needing to find a chink in most cases to stab someone) whereas blunt attacks are going to have their impact forced spread out/ reduced by armour but don't really 'miss'.

Chain mail is actually heavier and more restrictive of movement than plate.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;686329I'm curious as to whether you're thinking of applying armour rating as deflecting blows or mitigating damage, or a bit of both? I'd imagine piercing attacks are more all-or-nothing (needing to find a chink in most cases to stab someone) whereas blunt attacks are going to have their impact forced spread out/ reduced by armour but don't really 'miss'.

Generally armor has a few effects.

1) It redirects some of the force away from the wearer.  Think of a spear "deflecting" off a helmet or the like.  Some of the force will still be transferred to the wearer.  This is actually the most "mitigation-like" effect, even though it is usually considered to be closer to forcing a miss.

2) It spreads the force of impact of a wider area.  Take a pencil, and hit your stomach with the eraser (let's not get crazy).  It may hurt slightly.  Now, put something rigid between your stomach and the pencil, and hit yourself with the same force.  It'll hurt less, as the force is distributed over a wider area.

3) It slows the impact.  The padding in armor doesn't *stop* the impact (you still take the force, it has nowhere else to go), but what it does mean is that you take it over a longer time.  This means that you'll take less actual injury from it, as the real key is force absorbed per square inch over a time period.

4) It protects your skin.  Above and beyond the actual blunt force trauma that a blow can do, weapons are dangerous because they can cut you and cause tissue damage.  Armor works to prevent this.

On a slightly more psychological note, armor can also discourage specific attacks, as the attacker may pass up a blow that they know will be handled by the armor, and instead look for a chance to strike a weak spot.  In this way, the "AC as harder to hit" rule actually makes a bit of sense.

Quote from: TristramEvans;686343Chain mail is actually heavier and more restrictive of movement than plate.

Depends. I have worn a Chain hauberk and coif so head, down to elbows and knees and I could run it in at full speed pretty much. It proably weighted 35 lbs.
I have worn Plate greaves and they were a real pain in the arse, well lower leg. They got caught on stuff and snagged on straps and belts caught on vegetation and were really hard to climb in.

these were all replica stuff of course and not made to measure for me. I imagine a 'real' chain hauberk might be a little heavier but I can't see how greaves won't get cuaght on stuff as the design that allows them to fit the leg and the leg to move almost predicates they have edges to catch  

With a sheepskin on under the chain by the way it was pretty quiet as well

My experience with chain haulberks is that they seem fine at first, but after about an hour or so, I could really feel the weight. After about 6 hours running around in a field in it, I felt worse than hiking all day with a fully-loaded m-frame. Of course, I've seen many different variations of mail. The one I'm most familiar with is small, double-rings, and about as thick as a wool blanket.

I regularly wear pieces of plate, especially on my arms, and have been in a few full suits. It was like walking around in aluminum. Hot, but the weight was distributed pretty evenly so it didn't feel like my shoulders were keeping the whole thing up, and with the hinged joints never felt my coordination was anymore hindered than by that of a snowsuit. And as you say, these things would have been custom fits back in the day.

But I tend to rely more on what I read about this stuff than my personal experience. For the most part a lot of what I've read confirms my experience, tho fairly there was a good amount that didn't.

Quote from: jibbajibba;686346Depends. I have worn a Chain hauberk and coif so head, down to elbows and knees and I could run it in at full speed pretty much. It proably weighted 35 lbs.
I have worn Plate greaves and they were a real pain in the arse, well lower leg. They got caught on stuff and snagged on straps and belts caught on vegetation and were really hard to climb in.

There's enough historical information out there to suggest that the problem you experienced was poor fitting.

At any rate, it's unsurprising that greaves caught on vegetation more than a chain hauberk did, since they're right there in the vegetation.

It's not really a good apples-to-apples comparison.

Quote from: robiswrong;686350There's enough historical information out there to suggest that the problem you experienced was poor fitting.

At any rate, it's unsurprising that greaves caught on vegetation more than a chain hauberk did, since they're right there in the vegetation.

It's not really a good apples-to-apples comparison.

Not just vegetation though stuff like climbing was really tricky. I think generally guys wearing plate armour generally rode on a horse or fought on the ground they didn't adventure. So all that stuff you do when you adventure like climbing a wall or sliding down a river bank all that stuff is really hard with plate cos it doesn't flex whereas chain is just like a really heavy shirt.
I know if I was really adventuring then I would want
i) Chain hauberk
ii) high leather boots maybe with some sort of metal shin guard
iii) leather bracers or some sort of bondage style leather arm armour
iv) open face helm with flaps over the ears etc
v) shield

I wouldn't want to be stuck in a cave in plate armour in almost any circumstances.

But I am no expert and just coming from a personal experience position.

Quote from: jibbajibba;686353Not just vegetation though stuff like climbing was really tricky.

I get that.  I'm just saying that your comparison, in this case, is basically like saying that cloth gloves impact your ability to write more than leather boots do.

I wouldn't expect what you're wearing on your chest, and even upper legs, to impact your movement as much as what you're wearing on your feet.

Quote from: robiswrong;686356I get that.  I'm just saying that your comparison, in this case, is basically like saying that cloth gloves impact your ability to write more than leather boots do.

I wouldn't expect what you're wearing on your chest, and even upper legs, to impact your movement as much as what you're wearing on your feet.

Agreed, but my point is more about how armour affects play. If in your game there is no penalty dor climbing about dungeons in plate armour and in fact if plate armour emerges as lighter and more practical than chain then everyone will wear plate. Now that doesn't reflect my experience of trying to clamber round caves in teh Forest of Dean in bits of plate armour as opposed to chain.

I can see that a steel Cuirass covering the body from shoulder to groin might not be too restrictive but again even then when I have tired similar things made from fibreglass or plastic they are really hard to 'adventure' in because all of those activities which require you to flex your torso just don't work as well so again in climbing you just can't get as close to the rock if you have a breastplate on so there is a lot more weight on the arms etc.

Again I am no expert and this is all anecdotal but I feel rigid armours need to carry some sort of penalty for this type of activity.

Quote from: johnnih;686297Also, where would splint armor fit into all of this?

Historically, splint armour was worn before the development of plate by heavily-armoured, elite warriors such as the Varangian Guard.  It's greaves and/or vambraces in conjunction with other armour, so the typical Varangian had a mailshirt, optionally lamellar over the mail, and optionally splinted greaves and vambraces on forearm and lower leg.

My mailshirt is made to fit me.  Now, I'm not an internet badass by any manner of means----I'm 42 and less fit than I ought to be----but I can wear mail all day without a problem.  Mail that doesn't fit properly makes your shoulders ache, though----the secret of trouble-free mail-wearing is to get a suit such that part of the weight bears down on your hips.

My plate is in the very early (1320-ish, so pre-gunpowder being commonplace) style, which means it's designed to be worn over my mail.  Note that there's no breastplate in this style.  I can climb a tree while wearing it all.

The "field plate" of Unearthed Arcana is best understood as Milanese or Gothic plate which was designed to protect against gunpowder.  The "full plate" is probably best understood as either jousting plate or tourney plate, super-heavy armour for formal or ritualised combats where you didn't need to run around very fast or even see what's to your left and right.

Chain became popular because it allows you to lose more body heat, so you did not get as exhausted wearing it when you were at the Crusades.

Not sure if you would incorporate that into encumbrance or make it a special rule.

Also, its production takes forever and it should probably cost way more than plate.

Quote from: jadrax;686366Chain became popular because it allows you to lose more body heat, so you did not get as exhausted wearing it when you were at the Crusades.

Not sure if you would incorporate that into encumbrance or make it a special rule.

Also, its production takes forever and it should probably cost way more than plate.

Oh , no, plate is way more complex to make and expensive. Any Tom, Dick, or Haggard in the middle ages could get himself a Haulberk. Full plate was like buying a Lamborgini.

Quote from: TristramEvans;686368Full plate was like buying a Lamborgini.

Depend what you mean by 'Full Plate' if you mean Italian jousting armour or German Maximilian plate, yes. But by the period that's available so is cheap mass produced munition plate.

Of course period plays a huge role in what people wear, probably more than any other. Early Middle Ages odd bits of plate are actually quite common, Chain is very expansive - at this point Chain is actually the sporty Lamborgini of armour - by the Middle Ages chain becomes mass produced, still expansive but you can afford to put your troops in it. By 1361 Swedish peasants are wearing the stuff... but get slaughtered by crossbowmen. In the 14th century (late middle ages) you get the 'Plate revolution' where plate again becomes the most common form of Armour on the battlefield. The 15th century (early modern period) is the height of plate, with 'Alwhite' armour pretty much the standard. This is also the period of 'Full Plate', which basically was a very expensive race to make impervious armour for rich nobles. By the 16th century, armour slowly drops out of fashion.

'Transitional mail' (as the Tower of London museum calls it), or 'Mail and Plates' as listed by the OP, was among the heaviest of all (combat) armour and was the armour of the nobility at the end of the 13th and start of the 14th century. Fantastic against swords, not much cop against crossbow bolts. Also, was so heavy you often fell of your horse when hit by arrow fire... which is a bit pants. Probably should have the 'fatigue' quality.

'Field plate' in the OP is probably 'Alwhite' armour, in which case I would give it the 'fatigue' quality and remove the 'fatigue' from 'Full Plate' as high end plate actually fit very well and was probably much easier to wear than the mass produced stuff.

Thanks for the feedback I got so far!

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;686329I would never have thought of separating missiles from other piercing weapons though I can see some merits in the approach; I'd probably have added an 'armour piercing' type quality to certain weapons instead.

One of the things that irked me about D&D's appraoch, was that it didn't reflect how later missile weapons (crossbows and longbows) would easily penetrate all but the best armors. The way even plate mail provided some defense against these weapons, was more by reflecting the missiles than actually stopping them. As someone pointed out elsewhere (I have posted this on another forum as well), my table doesn't reflect how armor makes less advanced missile weapons much more inefficient. So I probably have to raise M defense across the board, and assign penetrating abilities to crossbows and longbows. So I'll end up moving towards what you would've done, but might still keep the M/P differentition.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;686329I'm curious as to whether you're thinking of applying armour rating as deflecting blows or mitigating damage, or a bit of both? I'd imagine piercing attacks are more all-or-nothing (needing to find a chink in most cases to stab someone) whereas blunt attacks are going to have their impact forced spread out/ reduced by armour but don't really 'miss'.

The combat system isn't fully developed yet, but armor will work to both decrease damage and avoid damage simultaneously. The combat system will differentiate between finesse attacks linked to a dexterity attribute and strong attacks linked to strength. Some weapons will be capable of both modes, while something like a mace would be all about powering through. For now, the STR-linked mace attack would be a two part roll against  a two part defensive roll with an armor modifier:
Mace attack STR die + "blunt" skill  vs.  DEX die + armor -> (check target number to avoid completely) -> + FORtitude die.
Damage will be calculated by counting the amount of points the attack surpass the defense roll and apply various modifiers (most notably a damage value from the weapon).

Quote from: jibbajibba;686357Agreed, but my point is more about how armour affects play. If in your game there is no penalty dor climbing about dungeons in plate armour and in fact if plate armour emerges as lighter and more practical than chain then everyone will wear plate. Now that doesn't reflect my experience of trying to clamber round caves in teh Forest of Dean in bits of plate armour as opposed to chain.

I can see that a steel Cuirass covering the body from shoulder to groin might not be too restrictive but again even then when I have tired similar things made from fibreglass or plastic they are really hard to 'adventure' in because all of those activities which require you to flex your torso just don't work as well so again in climbing you just can't get as close to the rock if you have a breastplate on so there is a lot more weight on the arms etc.

Yes, my light/medium/heavy categories are meant to reflect exactly this. The penalties they will impose, are mostly to reflect how manipulating/interacting with various objects around you gets harder. Not to reflect how you move around on a battlefield, as I know that the plate armors actually allowed this just fine. From the feedback I've got so far, I am still happy to keep mail in the medium category, as I believe it will be easier to climb or disarm traps in mail than plate.

Quote from: P&P;686365Historically, splint armour was worn before the development of plate by heavily-armoured, elite warriors such as the Varangian Guard.  It's greaves and/or vambraces in conjunction with other armour, so the typical Varangian had a mailshirt, optionally lamellar over the mail, and optionally splinted greaves and vambraces on forearm and lower leg.

Ah, yes. I remember now that it was more for specific parts rather than full suits, which is why I left it out initially.

Quote from: jadrax;686377'Field plate' in the OP is probably 'Alwhite' armour, in which case I would give it the 'fatigue' quality and remove the 'fatigue' from 'Full Plate' as high end plate actually fit very well and was probably much easier to wear than the mass produced stuff.

I see that my names were not very well thought through. By field plate I meant the plate armor that was worn at battlefields, while the full plate resembles tilting or jousting armor. Which I hope explains the "fatique" label as well, as people shouldn't be able to fight for extended periods of time in such cumbersome armor. Perhabs it would be even more fair to say, that they couldn't fight in tilting armor altogether?

Quote from: jadrax;686377Of course period plays a huge role in what people wear, probably more than any other. Early Middle Ages odd bits of plate are actually quite common, Chain is very expansive - at this point Chain is actually the sporty Lamborgini of armour - by the Middle Ages chain becomes mass produced, still expansive but you can afford to put your troops in it. By 1361 Swedish peasants are wearing the stuff... but get slaughtered by crossbowmen. In the 14th century (late middle ages) you get the 'Plate revolution' where plate again becomes the most common form of Armour on the battlefield. The 15th century (early modern period) is the height of plate, with 'Alwhite' armour pretty much the standard. This is also the period of 'Full Plate', which basically was a very expensive race to make impervious armour for rich nobles. By the 16th century, armour slowly drops out of fashion.

This is all very interesting, but also have me slightly confused. Based on a post by a real armor forger, I were under the impression that mail production was very time consuming, but that the tecnique was simple enough that just about anyone could learn how to do it. Conversely, making good plate armor getting the curves right etc.  required a great deal of skill. As a result an armorer could have his five assistants make mail all day, while the commissions for plate armor would require his attention. Another thing to factor in, is that mail could more easily be passed on to the next soldier, while a plate armor was a highly custumized thing, which of course impacted availability.

How do you see this?

Quote from: jadrax;686377'Transitional mail' (as the Tower of London museum calls it), or 'Mail and Plates' as listed by the OP, was among the heaviest of all (combat) armour and was the armour of the nobility at the end of the 13th and start of the 14th century. Fantastic against swords, not much cop against crossbow bolts. Also, was so heavy you often fell of your horse when hit by arrow fire... which is a bit pants. Probably should have the 'fatigue' quality.

Alright. Haven't heard this before, but I will consider adding the fatigue penalty here. Although I'm not sure, because I plan to make the penalty really heavy, so it may render the armor all but useless.