Greetings!

Lamellar Armours were very popular, perhaps even a primary armour type throughout Asia, India, and the Middle East for most of the Ancient and Medieval periods. What stats do use for your campaigns?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

I'll be following this thread with great interest. Does anybody know how lamellar fares against piercing, crushing, and slashing damage in relation to one another?

For 5e, I'd probably use Scale Mail (a type of Medium Armor).

Quote from: Cave Bear;1127359I'll be following this thread with great interest. Does anybody know how lamellar fares against piercing, crushing, and slashing damage in relation to one another?

Greetings!

Indeed, it is a very interesting topic. From what I have read, there seems to also been different *styles* of Lamellar armour. Some, for example, were heavier in design, and more favoured by soldiers serving as infantry warriors or shock troops. Meanwhile, there was yet another type of lighter Lamellar armour, that was specially designed to be not merely lighter, but also maximizing mobility and being cooler, which was favoured by steppe mounted warriors. From the widespread historical popularity of such armours, they seemed to provide solid protection against slashing, crushing, and piercing weapons. Essentially Lamellar armour didn't go out of fashion until the most advanced types of chain and plate armours became available, and the mass use of gunpowder weapons. The heavier chain and plate armours even then, were only embraced by the more settled kingdoms and armies. Steppe tribes, as well as other tribal peoples living in deserts, jungles and marshes, as well as mountains and rough, badlands still preferred the traditional styles of lamellar armour.

Game stat wise, I'm not certain where Lamellar Armours would be at, as far as Armour Class designations.

I keep thinking about different weight and mobility attributes, different levels of protection. Arrgghh.

The many tribes and kingdoms also used several different kinds of Scale Mail. Scale Mail was also popular, and widely used, but it was also different from Lamellar Armour. From the prevailing use of armies and warriors, Scale Mail was considered good and valuable, though it doesn't seem to have been as popular as Lamellar Armour.

Chewing.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK;1127368Scale Mail was also popular, and widely used, but it was also different from Lamellar Armour.

5e doesn't really define things so closely. Of the armors given for the game, Scale Mail is the best fit for lamellar even if it is technically a different style of construction. If you really wanted to, you could adjust the cost and/or weight a bit, but the AC (the most important value) is on a very narrow range, so it is unlikely to differ from Scale Male.

Quote from: HappyDaze;11273705e doesn't really define things so closely. Of the armors given for the game, Scale Mail is the best fit for lamellar even if it is technically a different style of construction. If you really wanted to, you could adjust the cost and/or weight a bit, but the AC (the most important value) is on a very narrow range, so it is unlikely to differ from Scale Male.

Greetings!

I was afraid you would say that, my friend!:D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

I've been developing some extra granularity in the items in 5e for a Diablo game.

For armor, you can add various extra properties that you can then add and remove from various armors to give them greater differentiation. For example, different pieces of armor might grant some damage reduction (minor amounts) against different types of damage. Maybe a piece of plate mail has damage reduction against slashing and piercing, but none against bludgeoning, for instance.

Maybe another piece of armor lets you grant more of your dexterity bonus (the normal max is +2).

Maybe some armor reduces your movement a bit...

I'd think it would be Splint Mail AC 4 in AD&D.

In Runequest 3 I'd just use the Armor for Lammelar.  In GURPS I'd have to dig the stats out of Low Tech.  Rolemaster is problematic in that it doesn't really do scale or lammelar but I'd probably treat Lammelar as inferior plate and scale as supperior chain.

In Oriental Adventures Oyori, a full suit, plus shield was AC 3 and is classed in the same range as splint mail so AC 4 sans shield.

So assume that its got the same AC as splint in 5e as well. So AC 17 but about 1/3rd lighter. 18 with shield.

Quote from: David Johansen;1127382Rolemaster is problematic in that it doesn't really do scale or lammelar but I'd probably treat Lammelar as inferior plate and scale as supperior chain.

I'm sure there were MERP supplements (I really want to say Mines of Moria) with rules for lammelar and scale -- probably chain with with modifiers vs certain weapon types.

I'm pretty sure ACKS slots lamellar in where AD&D has splint.

Mythras treats it the same as scale and brigandine, the heaviest form of flexible armour.

Lamellar seems to fit in the same place as splint & banded, which vaguely resemble actual brigandine & coat-of-plates.

Scale armour is vulnerable to upward thrusts getting in under the scales, I would tend to give it a worse AC.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1127373I've been developing some extra granularity in the items in 5e for a Diablo game.

For armor, you can add various extra properties that you can then add and remove from various armors to give them greater differentiation. For example, different pieces of armor might grant some damage reduction (minor amounts) against different types of damage. Maybe a piece of plate mail has damage reduction against slashing and piercing, but none against bludgeoning, for instance.

Maybe another piece of armor lets you grant more of your dexterity bonus (the normal max is +2).

Maybe some armor reduces your movement a bit...

Greetings!

I love that kind of detail, Macular Chaotic! I know there's strong support for "simplicity"--but I always like the nuanced details. I think such attributes make various kinds of armour and weaponry more interesting, and actually serve as a reflection of the fact that various kinds of armour and weaponry works better, faster, cooler, more efficiently, whatever--in different climates, terrains, and circumstances. Just like these realities develop and were embraced throughout history.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Omega;1127412In Oriental Adventures Oyori, a full suit, plus shield was AC 3 and is classed in the same range as splint mail so AC 4 sans shield.

So assume that its got the same AC as splint in 5e as well. So AC 17 but about 1/3rd lighter. 18 with shield.

Excellent thoughts, Omega! Like splint Mail. I see. AC 17, and 30% lighter in weight. I always keep chewing on the idea that there were reasons why huge armies in the Chinese empires used Lamellar armours; the Mongol Hordes, also widely embraced Lamellar armour. Meanwhile, further to the West, in Central Asian steppelands, there were both nomadic barbarian tribes, and sophisticated civilized kingdoms and powerful empires--they also used Lamellar armour, for use of troops in the deserts, the steppes, mountains hills and cities. Likewise to the south, in India, Lamellar armour was the standard. In the Middle East, and Persia, Lamellar armour was also very popular, for both infantry forces and cavalry. I would think that the professional soldiers, as well as skilled barbarian warriors, generals, warlords and khans, as well as the armoursmiths that crafted such armour to begin with embraced the Lamellar armour designs for good reasons. Lamellar armour provided formidable protective qualities while somehow catching the ever-elusive balance of comfort, coolness, and maneuverability. Good stuff, Omega!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: S'mon;1127431Lamellar seems to fit in the same place as splint & banded, which vaguely resemble actual brigandine & coat-of-plates.

Scale armour is vulnerable to upward thrusts getting in under the scales, I would tend to give it a worse AC.

Greetings!

S'mon! Splint type mail and Banded armour was very popular, weren't they? You know, so often in D&D, we see players immediately grabbing Chainmail and then hopping right to Plate Mail.

I suppose I have this dissonance with the game mechanics and my knowledge of history--great diversities of armies and warriors didn't seem to make the same kinds of choices, across thousands of miles, and centuries of time, you know?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK;1127454I always keep chewing on the idea that there were reasons why huge armies in the Chinese empires used Lamellar armours; the Mongol Hordes, also widely embraced Lamellar armour. Meanwhile, further to the West, in Central Asian steppelands, there were both nomadic barbarian tribes, and sophisticated civilized kingdoms and powerful empires--they also used Lamellar armour, for use of troops in the deserts, the steppes, mountains hills and cities. Likewise to the south, in India, Lamellar armour was the standard. In the Middle East, and Persia, Lamellar armour was also very popular, for both infantry forces and cavalry. I would think that the professional soldiers, as well as skilled barbarian warriors, generals, warlords and khans, as well as the armoursmiths that crafted such armour to begin with embraced the Lamellar armour designs for good reasons. Lamellar armour provided formidable protective qualities while somehow catching the ever-elusive balance of comfort, coolness, and maneuverability. Good stuff, Omega!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

OA actually explains this. Though not sure how far it applies to the real world.

But basically it put forward that these regions are alot hotter and wetter and thus more hostile to metal armour where the wearer might well overheat or the gear rust. That and the lamellars were lighter and better suited the more mobile fighting styles of the east. Add to that possible metal shortages or prioritizing weapons over armour and the trend to lamellar makes sense depending on all the factors involved.
Keep in mind that metal was used in eastern armour. Its just that it was not as prevalent as in the west.

On a related topic theres the fact that several eastern cultures did not use shields as much, or in the same ways as in the west. Again for various reasons partially tied to mobility. That and some of the shields that were employed went in rather different directions than in the west. Similar to how different cultures in the west developed unique shield types and shapes that fit their particular fighting styles and to combat particular enemy fighting styles.