Munition quality plate was worn off the shelf, you only got plate armour that fit if you were really rich. I honestly don't know how much of a difference it made, I have worn cheap plate, and with the straps and everything it felt fine... but it is not like I then went out and fought a battle or got on a horse.

In OGL terms I would probably see high end custom fitted plate as 'masterwork' if you are using any rules like that.


Jousting Armour is an odd beast - there is a lovely set in the Royal Armouries at Leeds. You literally cannot see out of it unless your tilted forward at 90 degrees, the idea was you lined yourself up, sat straight and hoped to hell nothing changed. That is obviously not going to work outside of a joust.

Quote from: TristramEvans;686368Any Tom, Dick, or Haggard in the middle ages could get himself a Haulberk.

Not quite. A good hauberk was quite valuable and many were passed from generation to generation as family heirlooms.

For the OP:

I'm curious as to why missiles are in their own category?  An arrow, an axe, and a sling stone can all be missiles but their effectiveness against different armors will vary considerably.

Table updated to reflect the feedback I've gotten (mostly from elsewhere though). Biggest difference is raising missile defenses across the board on metal armors, and adding a penetration quality to some missile weapons instead. This is to reflect that many simple missile weapons were very poor vs. armored foes.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;686439For the OP:

I'm curious as to why missiles are in their own category?  An arrow, an axe, and a sling stone can all be missiles but their effectiveness against different armors will vary considerably.

Well, after the rehaul of missile defenses, equating missile and piercing damage makes a bit more sense to me. Still, I think there is reason to keep these categories apart. While an arrow and a sword tip may perform somewhat similarly from a physical point of view, I would argue that the way they are utilized in a fight differ. A melee fighter may thrust at the weak spots of an armor where an archer from a distance is mostly concerned with just hitting his target. The thrusting attack of a swordsman could also attempt to get at the opponents armpit or from below the scales in a scale armor, where the archer's arrows will come from above.

As for the weapons you mention, I would probably categories them differently. A sling stone might very well be a blunt weapon, as it was generally quite big and harmed more by impact than penetration. A throwing axe may be considered slashing for these purposes, but I'm not sure about that yet. I haven't delved into throwing weapons yet.

What do you mean by "fragile", because glass is fragile, not cloth.

Quote from: robiswrong;686345On 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.

On another psychological note that never gets attention, wearing armor increases aggressiveness (because you feel invulnerable, see the types of hits people routinely dish out in football vs. rugby). It should get a bonus to combat attacks, but never does. To be more precise, the person in the superior armor should get a bonus while the person in the inferior armor gets a penalty.

Quote from: johnnih;687044Table updated to reflect the feedback I've gotten (mostly from elsewhere though). Biggest difference is raising missile defenses across the board on metal armors, and adding a penetration quality to some missile weapons instead. This is to reflect that many simple missile weapons were very poor vs. armored foes.



Well, after the rehaul of missile defenses, equating missile and piercing damage makes a bit more sense to me. Still, I think there is reason to keep these categories apart. While an arrow and a sword tip may perform somewhat similarly from a physical point of view, I would argue that the way they are utilized in a fight differ. A melee fighter may thrust at the weak spots of an armor where an archer from a distance is mostly concerned with just hitting his target. The thrusting attack of a swordsman could also attempt to get at the opponents armpit or from below the scales in a scale armor, where the archer's arrows will come from above.

As for the weapons you mention, I would probably categories them differently. A sling stone might very well be a blunt weapon, as it was generally quite big and harmed more by impact than penetration. A throwing axe may be considered slashing for these purposes, but I'm not sure about that yet. I haven't delved into throwing weapons yet.

There is a useful differentiation between thrusting and piercing weapons. Both cause puncture wounds, but the point on a pick (or a crossbow bolt) will punch through armor more easily than a dagger thrust. Pushing (dagger*, sword) delivers less force than swinging (pick, war hammer/bec de corbin). It's basically about the velocity of the point, which is why bullets punch through armor arrows have trouble with.


*excluding punch daggers, e.g. Indian Katars.