PDA

View Full Version : Armor in Tabletop RPGs



Clay Dreslough
01-06-2006, 11:26 AM
I fear that a number of RPGs have given people the false impression that it's not difficult to swing a sword through a piece of plate mail.

Many systems have 'armor points' that are subtracted during combat. Or they simply reduce damage inflicted by some percentage.

Remember that the plate mail is made of metal, just like the sword. If it's virtually impossible to swing your sword THROUGH your opponent's sword, it will also be difficult to swing a sword THROUGH his armor.

It is possible to repeatedly bruise an armored foe until he can't continue fighting at full strength. But it's not easy for a mortal human to swing a sword through a piece of metal.

Having fought in armor, I can say that it is definitely NOT the "defense of last resort". Because plate mail (or oil-hardened leather for that matter) is nearly impervious to human-strength attacks, it becomes as useful as a shield. For example, if you're wearing a good helm, you can actually lean your head into your opponent instead of keeping it out of range. This vastly increases your attack options. The same is true for other pieces of armor, from bracers to shin guards.

If you are building a REALISTIC system, armor should be prevalent as the dominant active AND passive defense. The wearer doesn't have to be skilled for chain mail to stop a sword blade. From the Bronze Age to the advent of gunpowder, armor was used by all warriors that could get their hands on it. You didn't see knights runnining around the Holy Lands naked because the penalties of wearing armor outweighed the benefits.

That said, how armor works in your system depends entirely on the feel your want for your game. For me, it's _FUN_ to play in a system where a skilled swashbuckler in a leotard, or a mighty barbarian in a loincloth, can defeat a heavily armored foe.

If this is what you want, there's no need to argue about realism. Just build a set of rules where armor is useful for most players, but where you can also build a successful character that wears little or no armor.

The most common way to do this is to have a 'Dodge Skill' or 'Defense Bonus' that is negatively impacted by wearing armor. This gives characters the choice between relying on 'Dodge-based' defense and 'Armor-based' defense.

Clay

medieval
01-06-2006, 11:35 PM
I play Dark Age of Camelot and had a paladin. Was killed in a matter of one hit. I find the embarrassing.

I had to assume they hit me between my armor and killed me instantly.

I like a little more realism, but you really cant say realism when it comes to mythical games of magic. inless you really want to explain every action and how it is realistic.

Jeff Olsen
01-19-2007, 01:36 PM
The most common way to do this is to have a 'Dodge Skill' or 'Defense Bonus' that is negatively impacted by wearing armor. This gives characters the choice between relying on 'Dodge-based' defense and 'Armor-based' defense.Like the Monk class in NetHack.

DeathMitten
01-29-2008, 04:36 AM
Not all armor was designe to protect against direct blows. Not all armor could do it.

Think of modern 'bullet-proof vests'.

If you're hit directly, in close range, by a bullet from a centerfire rifle, chances are you will die, but most combat deaths are not from that, it's from shrapnel and rifle fire from 100-250 yards, or at least that's according to the statistics I've read.

Same with most types with medieval armor. A knight accelerates and hits you with his spear, and the entire weight of the knight, the spear, the horse goes into you, you die. He pierces your armor or breaks your back. But glancing blows, arrows at a longer range, clubs, daggers - that's a large percentage of battlefield deaths you're protected against, and that makes you far, far safer.

Tiger_Toe
02-02-2008, 04:11 AM
The cost of fullplate should also be included in a game...i remember hearing on a telvision show that just a 'suit' of chain mailwould cost todays (well saw it in 1990's) man the equivalnet of 26 thousand dollars.

Tiger_Toe
02-03-2008, 06:17 AM
regaurding the EN-armoured

war hammers, maces, military "picks" and the heavy(winched) cross bow all defeat your breast plate...of course you have to get very close to a man who probably by right of birth has been training for just such an occasion.

sword?!
a man wanting to kill a fully armoured opponent wouldnt use a slashing weapon as its not suitable for the job...

"weekend warriors" and SCA warriors,etc are not actual warriors. If you are not in fear of great bodily harm, then you are just goofing off.

Clay Dreslough
09-15-2008, 12:43 AM
a man wanting to kill a fully armoured opponent wouldnt use a slashing weapon as its not suitable for the job...Excellent point.

gRYFYN1
09-16-2008, 11:11 AM
3rd edition D and D introduce the aspect of armor penalizing dodge bonuses ..

In 1st edition D&D slashing/piercing/bludgeoning weapon all suffered bonus/negative penalties based on the type of armor.

And correctly said slashing weapons weren't used vs armored opponents, midevil warriors relied in versatile weapons that had various functions, and the knowledge the to attacks even a heavily armored opponent at the weak points.

As far as the cost of things like chainmail/plate etc, while it may seem amazing weapon smiths and armor smiths were far more skilled than anyone we have today, even the most skilled have trouble duplicating the skill of those that made the armor 1000 years ago.