Quote from: chirine ba kal;911516Same here - always delighted to talk ironmongery!

I think Gronan and I were very lucky; practical experience making and using European-style arms and armor, and then being thrown in at the deep end with Prof. Barker's mind-boggling collection of snickersnees.

We were, honestly speaking, also lucky to grow up in the pre-D&D, pre Internet days.  Honestly, the amount of shit posted about arms and armor is worse that it ever was, and most of it is fourth or fifth hand sources.  Nobody even KNOWS about the Battle of Visby in 1361, never mind having actually sat down and looked through a copy of the extremely rare 2 volume work on it.  Or "Armory of Schloss Churberg."  Or even Claude Blair's "European Armor," or any of the works by the aforementioned Helmut Nickel.

We not only had first hand artifacts, we also had the advantage of being able to find real true honest-to-Karakan scholarly works on the subject instead of regurgitated crap churned out by game companies after a quick buck, scanned by somebody who didn't know any better, and then posted to the Web as though it were actual information.

Quote from: chirine ba kal;911516Same here - always delighted to talk ironmongery!

I think Gronan and I were very lucky; practical experience making and using European-style arms and armor, and then being thrown in at the deep end with Prof. Barker's mind-boggling collection of snickersnees.

Cool weapon, isn't it? Variation on what my Chinese son-in-law calls (generically) a dao, which I gather in Chinese martial arts is anything that's a sword blade with a handle on it.

A dao means a knife. It's not a specialized Chinese martial arts term nor does it carry some other hidden implication that 'der white guy' should be in awe of. It means a knife. Everything with a blade is a dao.

Quote from: Kellri;911579A dao means a knife. It's not a specialized Chinese martial arts term nor does it carry some other hidden implication that 'der white guy' should be in awe of. It means a knife. Everything with a blade is a dao.

Thank you - that's actually very helpful, as Zhodi speaks German and Mandarin; Keri, my daughter, speaks English and German, so everything gets translated through multiple filters. So this information helps me a lot in my understanding.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;911542We were, honestly speaking, also lucky to grow up in the pre-D&D, pre Internet days.  Honestly, the amount of shit posted about arms and armor is worse that it ever was, and most of it is fourth or fifth hand sources.  Nobody even KNOWS about the Battle of Visby in 1361, never mind having actually sat down and looked through a copy of the extremely rare 2 volume work on it.  Or "Armory of Schloss Churberg."  Or even Claude Blair's "European Armor," or any of the works by the aforementioned Helmut Nickel.

We not only had first hand artifacts, we also had the advantage of being able to find real true honest-to-Karakan scholarly works on the subject instead of regurgitated crap churned out by game companies after a quick buck, scanned by somebody who didn't know any better, and then posted to the Web as though it were actual information.

In all honestly iv spent a huge amount of time looking at books in my local library system.
and have looked at whats in other library systems in my area as best i can and there is a defiant lack of resources locally let alone the the number of useless or badly researched books.

Speaking of armour.

What does Roman Lamenar and Japanese/Byzantine Lamellar armours class as in D&D? Scale? Plate?

Depends also partially on coverage.  I'd probably count Lorica Segmentata and helmet as AC 5, shield making it AC 4.  Fuller coverage might bump it up one... I might count a full O-Yori as AC 4, or thereabouts.

I'm speaking OD&D here.

Quote from: Omega;911639Speaking of armour.

What does Roman Lamenar and Japanese/Byzantine Lamellar armours class as in D&D? Scale? Plate?

As Gronan pointed out, coverage plays a part. but so does weight and material used.

For example this piece of Byzantine Lamellar:  [ATTACH=CONFIG]283[/ATTACH]

I'd rate at either scale mail or (if the system lists it, I know that 3rd to 5th does) a breastplate in terms of AC.

This puppy on the other hand:  [ATTACH=CONFIG]284[/ATTACH]

I'd put down as splint.

But that's just me eyeballing, I'd have to do more research in materials, weight, flexibility.

Quote from: Omega;911639Speaking of armour.

What does Roman Lamenar and Japanese/Byzantine Lamellar armours class as in D&D? Scale? Plate?

I would give the Laminar/Lorica Segmentata a 5 (cuz I can't dance to it), as well as similar armors like the "coat-of-plates" where the metal pieces are fairly large. It's basically "splint mail" (AC 4) only without the mail. I handle the various scale, brigandine and lamellar armors as follows:

• If it is worn by itself and covers the torso and not much else, it's AC 6.



• If it's worn with some sort of mail backing and/or covers most of the body, it's AC 4.

Conversely, when the metal pieces are fewer and farther between, I lump them all under "studded". This includes the "coat of 1000 nails", bezainted, "ring" armor and any other armor consisting of a cloth or leather backing with metal bits added.

I use the shortest, most concise terms I can to describe armor in my game, because I still write everything by hand so I want to save space. I don't worry too much about what an armor is called* or its exact specifications**, because one of my worst nightmares involves turning into the kind of pedantic twat who starts squawking about how this type of armor didn't exist, or has the wrong name, or that the description EGG wrote doesn't match what's in some book or another. You know the kind of bore I'm talking about, right? Oh, and extra sad fuck points for anyone who spells mail as "maille".

* Most of the terminology for armor and weapons was made up fairly recently. For example, Lorica segmentata wasn't coined until about 1300 years after the Romans stopped using it. Here's another bit of trivia: the word mail was used to describe armor other than the ones made of interlocking metal links as far back as the early 1600s. Keep that in mind next time someone bitches about "plate mail" or "scale mail".

** I've freely used material from just about every edition of the game I've gotten my hands on. Sometimes the cost, weight and even the AC rating for an armor will be different and I don't catch it and change it to match the stats in AD&D (my drug of choice). THIS IS NOT A BAD THING! Not every suit of leather armor (for example) will be identical. Some will be AC 8 (the standard in AD&D) some could be AC7 (other editions of D&D, plus the 1E Monster Manual). I simply make up a reason why one suit is better than the other, such as quality of materials or craftsmanship or the condition it's in. A suit of chainmail might just be a coat of mail that leaves the legs and forearms uncovered and is thus AC 6 instead of AC 5. I've found that this kind of thing can make a regular piece of equipment a little more interesting. Give it a try and see how it goes for you.

Anyone ever run into players trying to enforce alignment niche? Like "Only one Lawful Good", yadda yadda. Way back in the 90s a player I knew related a run in with that which resulted in campaign and group implosion. Never seen it myself.

I give armour what ever rating seems appropriate. I don't always go exactly by the book. I remember reading one account of a suit of "jack", plates of horn sewn into the lining of a coat, that was so impenetrable that when the attackers finally killed the man wearing it they hacked it to bits in frustration. This is an armour type that doesn't even feature in the D&D tables.

I also feel that nudging individual amours up or down a point help to bring a sense of differences in quality, repair, etc. I don't see Armour Class or Damage Resistance as set in stone. They are quick shorthand so I don't have to figure out each goblin individually. I can give them all stock munitions grade leather and have one number all the same, while their chieftain gets the individualized stuff.

Quote from: Omega;911692Anyone ever run into players trying to enforce alignment niche? Like "Only one Lawful Good", yadda yadda. Way back in the 90s a player I knew related a run in with that which resulted in campaign and group implosion. Never seen it myself.

I love alignment but even to me that sounds like crazy talk. One of the first big things stressed about alignment is that it's like Fight Club, "first rule, nobody talks about Fight Club..." Hence covert sussing out through alignment languages, and that never openly or early in a relationship because it's such a major breach of tact.

To make it some sort of quota slots assumes a shared metagame knowledge of alignment outside of actual play (and it precludes several classes from working entirely unless 100% accomodated). Sounds wholly untenable -- and a gross assumption error about what was explicitly said about alignment. Implosion is unsurprising.

One thing I did run into was a player demanding spell niche protection. essentially "I have this spell/s and you cant have it to!". Apparently the DM theyd been with previous had some weird ideas on magic users and/or campaign setting. It sounded like there was essentially only one spell each in the whole world. So if you had Magic Missile then no one else knew it. Which created a totally different power struggle amongst wizards.

Once the player realized that wasnt the case at this table they were fine and loved that MU's could share spells and all that.

Quote from: Omega;911692Anyone ever run into players trying to enforce alignment niche? Like "Only one Lawful Good", yadda yadda.

I've seen the opposite ("everyone must be Lawful Good"), but never one-per-alignment.  Do you have any idea why that player was thinking this would be desirable?

Quote from: nDervish;911736I've seen the opposite ("everyone must be Lawful Good"), but never one-per-alignment.  Do you have any idea why that player was thinking this would be desirable?

No. The person relating it wasnt sure either the reason. Just that it lead to the game folding badly. Sounded allmost like a take on Fantasy Wargaming where the GM is told that clashing party member alignment is good and if they arent squabbling enough with eachother then to take over their characters and make them.

So at a total guess the player wanted, or was used to, inter-party friction based off alignment. Too artificial and forced for my tastes. If theres going to be alignment friction Id rather it came about naturally and by chance rather than a DM forcing it on us.

Quote from: Omega;911729One thing I did run into was a player demanding spell niche protection. essentially "I have this spell/s and you cant have it to!". Apparently the DM theyd been with previous had some weird ideas on magic users and/or campaign setting. It sounded like there was essentially only one spell each in the whole world. So if you had Magic Missile then no one else knew it. Which created a totally different power struggle amongst wizards.

Once the player realized that wasnt the case at this table they were fine and loved that MU's could share spells and all that.

It never ceases to amaze me how lucky I've been to have never played with fucktards like those you describe.

If the player is trying to enforce such a moronic restriction, I can't imagine even the politest players not telling him to fuck off. If my mage happens upon a scroll or spell book that has a spell that your mage, for some asshole reason, claims exclusive rights to, guess what -my mage now has the spell too. Don't like it? Tough titty for you.

If this is some kind of house rule by the DM, I would tend to be against it but under the right conditions could be interesting. If only one mage has magic missile (for example) then when he or she dies, the spell dies with them. So either the spell is gone forever, or a mage has to go back to the old drawing board and re-research the spell or it suddenly becomes available again to whoever gets hold of that mage's spell book. I can see quite a few mages getting fragged for access to their spells...