Quote from: Rincewind1;522241Sure, but...last time I checked, DnD armour helped nothing against fireball ;p. Not to mention - at the same time, development of firearms, forced the full plate to be dropped, as it's easier to just try to dodge/little point in wearing armour, since bullets/fireballs will just pass through it anyway. At some point the armour developed against early firearms, crossbows and polearms, but at some point it also started to be forsaken.

Well, that is what I get trying to defend D&D armor.

Most of my systems have aromors protecting some amount vs different magic types.  

But the reduction of armor came in the mid 16th century, If I remember aright, as the first couple centuries of firearms actualy caused an increase (an arms war, if you will) in the level of armor as said bullets were stopped by better armor.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;522247Could be; I don't recall the exact game distinction between field plate and full plate without looking it up.

I was being a cunt - there is none I think. Although I dunno if term "field armour" was really commonly used. Jousting armour would, however, have very thicker breastplate and neck areas - it was the armour that created the myth about knights needed cranes to get on the horses, as indeed, it was so thick that you did.

Quote from: LordVreeg;522252Well, that is what I get trying to defend D&D armor.

Most of my systems have aromors protecting some amount vs different magic types.  

But the reduction of armor came in the mid 16th century, If I remember aright, as the first couple centuries of firearms actualy caused an increase (an arms war, if you will) in the level of armor as said bullets were stopped by better armor.

Indeed, that's what I had said. Around 17th century the firearms just became too accurate, strong, and common in the armies of the time. From that point, there is a significant reduction in armour - XIX century basically hails the end of armour as more or less common battlefield equipment.

A few other factors came into the reduction of armour as well (the scale of warfare; the birth of city - based class of nobility, etc. etc.), but mostly they just became useless against common weaponry.

Generally speaking - I guess full plate would give some protection against fireball (although on the other hand, wouldn't the metal heat too much? Depends on temperature of fireball, which must be rather big - I guess flamethrower - like, at least).

Quote from: LordVreeg;522252Well, that is what I get trying to defend D&D armor.

Most of my systems have aromors protecting some amount vs different magic types.

FWIW, I believe D&D Field Plate and Full Plate actually do provide damage reduction, in addition to the usual AC.  But it's very minimal, IIRC.  (Like I said, I don't typically use Field Plate or Full Plate in D&D, so I'd have to look it up.)

Ah hell, I guess I'll dig out my copy of UA...  Wow, even as little used as this book is, it's still coming unbound...

Here we go:

Quote from: Unearthed ArcanaField Plate Armor consists of light, interlocked plates covering the entire body and includes full visored helm, gauntlets, and armored boots.

Full Plate Armor consists of perfectly forged interlocking plates backed with chain, covering the entire body.  It includes an ornate visored helm, gauntlets, and armored footgear.

Both Field and Full Plate grant damage absorption.  Field plate gives 1 point of absorption per damage die.  So it would absorb 6 points of damage from a 6d6 fireball.  Full plate gives 2 points of absorption per damage die.  So it would absorb 12 points of damage from the same fireball.  Absorbing damage reduces the armor.  Field plate can absorb 12 points of damage before requiring repair.  Once reduced in this manner, it can no longer absorb damage acts as one AC lower, until repaired.  Full plate can absorb 26 points before being considered reduced and in need of repair.

That's nice to know. Ought to be a core "modular option" IMO - one of the great thing about BRP BGB is the amount of options.

Quote from: Rincewind1;522259I dunno if term "field armour" was really commonly used.

Yeah, it strikes me as a dubious term, as far as historical armor goes.  In my mind, I think I was equating D&D "Full Plate" with heavier jousting armor, and D&D "Field Plate" with armor like that in the illustration, above.  But looking at the definitions in UA, that doesn't seem to be accurate.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;522266Yeah, it strikes me as a dubious term, as far as historical armor goes.  In my mind, I think I was equating D&D "Full Plate" with heavier jousting armor, and D&D "Field Plate" with armor like that in the illustration, above.  But looking at the definitions in UA, that doesn't seem to be accurate.

The definition from UA strikes me more as partial (half) plate - I had suspected it to be so.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;522264Ah hell, I guess I'll dig out my copy of UA...  Wow, even as little used as this book is, it's still coming unbound...

Here we go:



Both Field and Full Plate grant damage absorption.  Field plate gives 1 point of absorption per damage die.  So it would absorb 6 points of damage from a 6d6 fireball.  Full plate gives 2 points of absorption per damage die.  So it would absorb 12 points of damage from the same fireball.  Absorbing damage reduces the armor.  Field plate can absorb 12 points of damage before requiring repair.  Once reduced in this manner, it can no longer absorb damage acts as one AC lower, until repaired.  Full plate can absorb 26 points before being considered reduced and in need of repair.

for early ad&d that is actually pretty ground breaking.  Nice Pull.

Quote from: Rincewind1;522267The definition from UA strikes me more as partial (half) plate - I had suspected it to be so.

I'm not sure about that.  The description of "field plate" says it covers the entire body; it sounds like a full harness, to me.  The distinction seems to be the quality/strength of the plates and their backing (e.g., "light plates" vs. "perfectly forged plates").

Found some more description in Dragon #72, where the Cavalier class was introduced (and I believe where field/full plate was formally introduced, although there's a mention of "field plate" in the DMG, too).

Bold emphasis added:

Quote from: Dragon #72Plate Armor: A cavalier character from a landed family of gentle (knightly) or noble birth will always be suited in plate armor. Note that this is different from plate mail in that it does not require extensive use of chain mail, pieces of plate, and heavy padding. Thus, plate armor is of the same relative bulk and weight as chain mail. The wearer is able to move at a base rate of 9". All plate armor is carefully fitted to the individual, so not one suit of plate armor in a thousand will fit another person. The armor class of plate armor is either 2 or 1, depending on the quality of workmanship. For game purposes, the two sorts are distinguished from each other as Field Plate Armor (AC 2) and Plate Armor (AC 1). Because of the individual nature of this sort of protection, a suit of magical plate armor is never discovered. If a cavalier desires magical armor of this nature, he or she must have it specially constructed and enchanted. Such a process will require weeks of fitting, months of work at a forge by the most expert dwarven crafters, the finest mithral or adamantite- alloyed steel, and a year or more of magical enchanting. The cost of such work is certainly in excess of 100,000 gold pieces per each "plus" of enchantment, and such armor is very rare indeed.

That seems pretty clear that the only real difference between "field plate" and "full plate" is the quality of the workmanship.  Assuming a D&D campaign which includes plate armor (in addition to transitional "plate mail"), wealthy lords would probably tend towards high-quality "full plate," and less well-to-do retainers and men-at-arms might tend towards "field plate" or "plate mail."

Quote from: Benoist;522246It'd be uncommon amongst mundane, non-magical armors to me, and thereby relatively rare for NPCs to wear unless they're specifically fighters of some skill or experience. Of course, for PCs, if you start paying attention to the NOISE a guy in field plate does while walking in a dark dungeon full of mortal enemies able to hear from a distance, the field plate might not be the optimal gear for a delving fighter...

From personal experience well fitted and well maintained plate armor isn't that noisy. The issue is similar to proper placement of gear on your person. The best I have worn for getting around is plate armor covered in a velvet like cloth.

Full Plate helms are a definite detriment. I wore a pot helm and a chain coif.

The big issue with using plate armor all the time is fatigue and maintenance. The fatigue issue is the same as lugging 40 to 60 pound pack. Maintenance is because of all the straps and coverings (if you use them). If a strap breaks or get stretched then you are hosed until you can deal with it.

Personally if I had to tackle a dungeon I would go with a pot helm with a nasal guard, a chain or scale coif, a coat of plates, plate legbrace, and a armbrace, and a shield.

Anyway I feel this level of detail is basically beyond what D&D is meant to cover. The main thing controlling the use of full plate armor is expense and to a less extent movement right. I consider the movement rate penalty inaccurate but since I don't got a good D&Dish way to handle it any other way, I live with it.

My picture to the left show me wearing some of my gear. Underneath the surcoat is a coat of plates and leg braces on my thighs and knees. I am wearing a pair of leather vambraces on my arms. The coat of plates is held together by the brown belt around my waist. Probably around 30 pounds of gear I am wearing and could go all day with it.

Quote from: Planet Algol;522248I guess it's too much to hope for a well integrated Weapon vs. Armor Type system in 5e...

Probably.

RPGPundit

Crushing my dreams of a warhammer being the optimal choice for kicking the ass of a giant crab?

The Bastards...