TheRPGSite

http://sordnbord.blogspot.com/2012/03/knight.html

An actual warrior in heavy plate with a sallet, shield, and warhammer. Damn near impossible to kill unless you are similarly armed and armored (or using magic).

Why?

I think this is doable in any edition of DnD or pretty much any fantasy game ever. Worst comes to worst, write on your character sheet "has heavy plate with a sallet, shield, and warhammer"!

Quote from: The_Shadow;521789I think this is doable in any edition of DnD or pretty much any fantasy game ever. Worst comes to worst, write on your character sheet "has heavy plate with a sallet, shield, and warhammer"!

Important bit:

QuoteDamn near impossible to kill unless you are similarly armed and armored (or using magic).

All 4e characters are "damn near impossible to kill" by virtue of low monster damage, lots of hit points, healing surges, minor action healing, and so forth, and they are all generally effective against any heavily-armored character because we wouldn't want anyone to feel ineffective for the four hours that a fight takes.  In 3e, on the other hand, the fighter's AC will not protect you and you're going down to a save-or-lose in the first two rounds.

2e was better in this regard.  Still a shitty system with pluses being minuses, but better because AC was fairly well-contained.

Not the most convienient outfit for wondering round a dungeon though eh?

Or for going shopping in a market, or sleeping round a campfire.

Also I want all warrior options to be viable from a half naked barbarian to an elf in a chain mail shirt and a bow to a leather clad mongol to a lithe swashbuckler.

Some will be hard to hit, some will be easy to hit but hard to hurt and some will be fast and hit you before you can hit them and some will stand a long way away and shoot you with arrows all should be valid.

I agree with jibba. When i made my first 4E character (a fighter) i remember being very dissapointed because i felt like they gave me two basic fighter imagesto select from (depending on the powers i selected). For me it was the way they handled the fighter that turned me off to the edition.

Ok, I'd at least like some of the artwork to reflect this look. The ONLY time D&D acknowledged heavy plate was in the Birthright setting, art-wise.

Quote from: danbuter;521831Ok, I'd at least like some of the artwork to reflect this look. The ONLY time D&D acknowledged heavy plate was in the Birthright setting, art-wise.

Sturm Brightblade- Dragonlance

A Paladin in Hell- 1E PHB


These two images immediately spring to mind.

I think of "default D&D" arms and armor as being roughly like European armor from the 14th century.  Lots of men-at-arms in mail with plates (i.e., plate mail), but not really what we think of as full plate armor.  Longbowmen.  Longswords.  Pole arms.  Et cetera.

EDIT:  Pretty much like this (http://www.flickr.com/photos/8765199@N07/3796182715/), actually.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;521860I think of "default D&D" arms and armor as being roughly like European armor from the 14th century.  Lots of men-at-arms in mail with plates (i.e., plate mail), but not really what we think of as full plate armor.  Longbowmen.  Longswords.  Pole arms.  Et cetera.

EDIT:  Pretty much like this (http://www.flickr.com/photos/8765199@N07/3796182715/), actually.

This. I wish there was a return to that particular feel, actually.

What I miss most about newer D&D art is the sheer variety. I liked the traditional fighters in armor, the loincloth barbarians, the cheesecake chicks, the character and humor in Jim Holloway's scenes, the otherworldy quality of the Erol Otis pieces. The silly, the serious, the sane, and the insane all came together to illustrate so much of what D&D is about.

The 3E era was largely just variations of dungeonpunk. A sprinkling is ok but as baseline for everything yuck.

There have been some good pieces for 4E. The silly oversized weapons need to go. More and more of the images for the game seem to be computer rendered rather than hand drawn of late perhaps thats why so many of them leave me cold even though they may be technically well done.

There is no substitute for warmth and character.

What I really hope is that the next edition is full of stuff that I like, but has nothing I dislike. I like 4e, but there are things in it that I don't like perfectly. Those things need to go.

For me, the fighter is less tied to armor, and more tied to weapons.  He (or she) might be clad only in padded armor with bits of boiled leather.  Or a mail hauberk.  Or full plate mail.  He has the ability to wear it, but what makes him a fighter is his ability to fight with weapons at a level unmatched by other classes.

The footsoldier
Pikeman
Cavalier
Barbarian
Duelist
Archer

All fighters of a different flavor

As odd it might sound, using armour is more then just wearing it. An experienced warrior knows how to fight in such a manner, that he exposes himself in such ways, get the potential blows to strike in the best guarded places.

And of course, also, the experienced warriors will know where the breaches in armour are.

Quote from: Rincewind1;521890As odd it might sound, using armour is more then just wearing it. An experienced warrior knows how to fight in such a manner, that he exposes himself in such ways, get the potential blows to strike in the best guarded places.

And of course, also, the experienced warriors will know where the breaches in armour are.

To me this sounds like armour should have a varying level of protection. Against the untrained folks, it is better. But against trained warriors it is less effective. This this is reflected in the 3.P BAB in my opinion.

Quote from: Tetsubo;521909To me this sounds like armour should have a varying level of protection. Against the untrained folks, it is better. But against trained warriors it is less effective. This this is reflected in the 3.P BAB in my opinion.

Only if melee classes would also get bonus AC based on level ;), and perhaps bonus AB if the target wears armour.

You know, I'd like something in mail with a spear.

But I wrote that game.

Quote from: Silverlion;521912You know, I'd like something in mail with a spear.

But I wrote that game.

You wrote Warhammer? Congrats.

Yeah, I'm partial to the look of early medieval warriors too.

Sounds like a lot of you guys should check out the new HackMaster. Shields and heavy armor are very important in HM combat. Shields give you a pretty high bonus for your defense and armor stops damage due to its Damage Reduction(DR) stat. At the same time heavy armor slows you down and gives you a penalty to your Defense rating, meaning that you are easier to hit but because of the higher DR, you are harder to damage. So basically your choice of armor boils down to if you want to be lightly armored and be harder to hit or if you want to be able to resist higher amounts of damage. When it comes to fighting monsters(or NPCs) who have the potential to do a lot of damage then Heavy Armor starts to look like a very attractive choice. Especially with HM's "Threshold of Pain" mechanic. Each character has a "Threshold of Pain" that starts out at roughly 30% of your Hit Points and slowly increases with your level(Fighters have a better ToP than other classes). When you get hit with damage from a single blow that exceeds your ToP then you have to roll under Half of your Con on a 1d20 or you are now laying on the ground writhing in pain and unable to do anything. That lasts for 5 seconds times the amount you missed your 1/2Con roll by. Also, Battle Axes and Warhammers are two of the best weapons in the game.

Treshold of Pain?

Damn you Hackmaster for stealing my ideas!

I understand Warhammers, but why Battle Axes? (unless they have the blunt side, which serves as a crude Warhammer if you fight against a plated opponent)

HackMaster 4th Edition had Threshold of Pain in 2001, so of course the new HM is going to have it... ;)

Quote from: Rincewind1;521924I understand Warhammers, but why Battle Axes? (unless they have the blunt side, which serves as a crude Warhammer if you fight against a plated opponent)

Well, I'm sure that eventually they are going to have Weapon vs Armor type modifiers but Battle Axes are so good because they have a good chance to bust Shields. In HM Shields actually break with a hard blow. Shields have a Breakage rating so that if they take a certain amount of damage you roll a competing d20 with your opponent, there are actually three ratings with the chance of breaking going up with a stronger blow. In HM, if you miss but only miss by 10 much then you've hit the enemy's shield. HM combat is competing d20's;

Attacker: 1d20 +attack bonuses
Defender(no Shield): 1d20-4 +defense bonuses
Defender(s/Small Shield): 1d20+6+defense bonuses
Defender(w/medium or large shield):1d20+6+bonuses

So effectively a small shield gives you a +10.

If the attacker misses by 10, then that means he's hit the defenders shield. There is a reduced amount of damage you roll, a shield absorbs a certain amount of damage based on its size and then the rest goes to the character(armor DR subtracts from it) so you can still "Miss" and do some damage, but you have to get through the defender's Shield AND Armor DR but the Shield could possibly break. Battle Axes are the best one handed weapon against a shield. No big surprise since an Axe is built to chop into wood...

Ah yes, I had forgotten about that one.

Two of the things that you want to attempt in HM, break your enemy's shield and/or force a ToP check. Do that and you can end the combat quickly...

This is what I always wanted:

(http://www.c-books.biz/bookjunction.co.uk/images/data/b0028rqeoy.jpg)

Quote from: Settembrini;521938This is what I always wanted:

Yes! I loved that game, still have some of them. If you like Lost Worlds, then check out HackMaster... ;)

I have like a dozen of those old books, musta played dude in chainmail vs skeleton a hundred times. The others never really captured the semi-balance.

IMO, the first series, like the first 10 or so, are really good. After that, not so much...

At one time I reversed engineered them to figure out the system mechanics to use it for RPG combat. It works pretty good.

The great irony is that the warrior in plate armour was actually more mobile then warrior in full chain armour >.>.

Quote from: greylond;521973IMO, the first series, like the first 10 or so, are really good. After that, not so much...

At one time I reversed engineered them to figure out the system mechanics to use it for RPG combat. It works pretty good.

I watched the guy (Alfred Leonardi) who came up with Aces of Aces and the system behind the Battle Books actually do a matrix once -- well at least partially.

 It was just after Flying Buffalo did a handshake deal at Origins for the KODT Battlebooks. He pulled out a pad of paper as we described how each of the characters fought in the comic and the numbers were just tumbled from his pencil onto the page. Crazy mad math skills. ;)

IRRC he's also the guy who came up with the battle/dice system for Axis and Allies.

(also an extremely nice guy).

I'd rather it was this:

(http://pds7.egloos.com/pds/200712/18/12/e0081212_47672cbfee64c.jpg)

RPGPundit

Looks like a 10th Level(or higher) HackMaster Fighter or Knight to me... ;)

The problem is that this is actually late 15 - early 16th century (Milanese if I am not mistaken). Part of why those armours look like this, is the development of gunpowder and pole weaponry, causing raise of effectiveness of infantry.

So not really the period that DnD, at least 1e, going by the rules, supports too well, IMO.

Quote from: Rincewind1;522094The problem is that this is actually late 15 - early 16th century (Milanese if I am not mistaken). Part of why those armours look like this, is the development of gunpowder and pole weaponry, causing raise of effectiveness of infantry.

So not really the period that DnD, at least 1e, going by the rules, supports too well, IMO.

For a game like D&D, being a bit anachronistic doesn't bother me much. At the same time, having gunpowder available in the setting has never been much of an issue for me either.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;522154For a game like D&D, being a bit anachronistic doesn't bother me much. At the same time, having gunpowder available in the setting has never been much of an issue for me either.

I don't say it's bad - it's just that I don't think DnD ever tackled gunpowder weaponry well.

Quote from: Rincewind1;522162I don't say it's bad - it's just that I don't think DnD ever tackled gunpowder weaponry well.

I cant say their gunpowder rules made much of an impression on me one way or the other. I recall an exploding d10 but cant recall which edition it was for. Mighty fortress had some interesting options i believe. The one time their gunpowder rules impressed me was in Masque of the Red Death. But that rules system had other issues and it was designed more for revolvers and rifles than stuff like the blunderbus.

Quote from: Rincewind1;522094The problem is that this is actually late 15 - early 16th century (Milanese if I am not mistaken). Part of why those armours look like this, is the development of gunpowder and pole weaponry, causing raise of effectiveness of infantry.

So not really the period that DnD, at least 1e, going by the rules, supports too well, IMO.

And please, even if the game does not include firearms, one might expect the inclusion of certain pyrotechnical magics to create the same armor developments as the black powder?

I didn't appreciate it enough at the time, but looking back, I really liked how Jim Holloway represented characters.  It was a lot more realistic.

Quote from: RPGPundit;522040I'd rather it was this:

(http://pds7.egloos.com/pds/200712/18/12/e0081212_47672cbfee64c.jpg)

RPGPundit

Ahhh here we are. Excellent.

In D&D terms, I'd call that Field Plate (AC2, or AC1 if a shield is employed).  My games don't usually feature Field Plate or Full Plate; Plate Mail is typically the most advanced form of armor in my campaigns.

Quote from: LordVreeg;522183And please, even if the game does not include firearms, one might expect the inclusion of certain pyrotechnical magics to create the same armor developments as the black powder?

Sure, 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.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;522239In D&D terms, I'd call that Field  Plate (AC2, or AC1 if a shield is employed).  My games don't usually  feature Field Plate or Full Plate; Plate Mail is typically the most  advanced form of armor in my campaigns.

That's pretty much classic full plate, tbh. The only armour tougher would be jousting armour.

Quote from: LordVreeg;522183And please, even if the game does not include firearms, one might expect the inclusion of certain pyrotechnical magics to create the same armor developments as the black powder?

That would depend on how common such magic is on the battlefield.  In my games, for example, battlefield magic isn't terribly common.  Also even when magic is present on the battlefield, consider the effect of armor vs. magic missile, or fireball, or lightning bolt, or sleep.

It'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...

Quote from: Rincewind1;522241That's pretty much classic full plate, tbh.

Could be; I don't recall the exact game distinction between field plate and full plate without looking it up.

I guess it's too much to hope for a well integrated Weapon vs. Armor Type system in 5e...

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...