I just read it again: the explanation that small and light weapons such as rapiers and daggers can penetrate full-plate armor through gaps. Now, I'm no specialist in medieval fighting gear, but that seems really unlikely to me, and I do beleive I've seen other statements to that regard here on the boards before. But before anyone starts accusing me of adding too much realism before, I'll qualify myself by saying that I realize the functionality of the game is not related to realism; rogues and the like need to be able to effectively attack enemies in plate armor. However, the explanation that they find "gaps in the armor" seems like a total cop-out to me. Without altering any mechanics, I just want to be able to offer better descriptions of combat in my games.
What I would like to know is a bit more about medieval armor and combat. I've wasted whole days before perusing Wikipedia's pages on armor, but still don't know what I'd like. There's a distinct shortage of easily-accessible buffs and scholars on this subject matter in my area, so I turn to the paizonians. What angles and areas were typically actually vulnerable to attack in a suit of plate? What strategies did people actually employ to wound foes so armored? And ultimately, the real reason I'm writing all this, what kinds of descriptions can I give in-game to explain how combatants with smallish weapons actually manage to overcome the protection offered by plate? I'll take anything which sounds feasible, or links to such information off-site. Thanks!
Primarily the areas of vulnerability would be the joints. In order to allow for movement, there had to be gaps, places where two pieces of mail would be laced together. So elbows, knees, armpits. There were pieces of armor designed specifically to make these vulnerable areas harder to hit, but nothing is perfect.
Armors, as heavy they can be, always have weak spots.
Some examples : Orcs in Lord of the Rings (spotted by Legolas) and Stormtroopers in Star Wars.
And rogues are experts at finding weak spots in their opponents. That's why they have sneak attack.
There are even some feats giving a way to bypass armor, or to exploit weak spots.
What angles and areas were typically actually vulnerable to attack in a suit of plate? What strategies did people actually employ to wound foes so armored? And ultimately, the real reason I'm writing all this, what kinds of descriptions can I give in-game to explain how combatants with smallish weapons actually manage to overcome the protection offered by plate? I'll take anything which sounds feasible, or links to such information off-site. Thanks!
Off the top of my head I recall how the german greatsword wielding mercs became less common when the french mercs used daggers and shortswords and lighter armour.
Reason: The french soldiers would dodge the immensely powerful and well ranged sword swing, quickly close to close range and stab at the lightly armoured armpit area (often leading to a direct lung or heart wound).Edit: Please forgive me if the nationalities are not entirely correct. Though the story is true.
The inside of any joint is going to be chain over padding at the most. As already mentioned the armpit almost always has some sort of gap, as well as around the neck behind the clavicle, and the groin. All common targets when people actually fought in the stuff. Rapiers are one thing, but daggers and short swords would be excellent for exploiting these gaps.
What you are probably referring to is the stiletto. With a weapon like this, it should be possible to penetrate the weak spots of plate armor (and penetrate chain mail easily, of course). As others have said before, a plate armor has to have gaps at the joints, otherwise the wearer could not move at all. Of course, it was tried to cover these with chain mail, but a stiletto could still cause nasty wounds - imagine one penetrating the elbow or knee joint, the pain alone whould be unbearable, to say nothing about the damage caused.
Stefan
A big part of the problem is that the really heavy stuff, Full Plate and such - Armour that actually had very few weak points saw very little use. By the time it was developed it was already obsolete - the prevalence of well trained pike blocks, crossbow armed mercenaries and English Longbowmen made it so the heavily armoured knight was no longer master of the battlefield.
Hence a question along the lines of 'how did lightly armoured foes ever penetrate such armour' is really difficult to answer because the really rich and powerful men who could actually afford this obscenely expensive armour were rarely exposing themselves to peons with crossbows if they could help it and therefore generally did not come up against lightly armed foes to serve as examples for us to evaluate.
There are lots of examples of how to deal with people in heavy but reasonable armour like chain mail and such but these armours have much more clear weak points that can be exploited and don't really address the question of how one fairs against a total tin can decked out in the best armour that (a hell of a lot of) money can buy.
From a game perspective I'd not worry to much about it because you'll eventually face a worse problem then 'how do daggers work against plate?' Realistically speaking in a world were longbows and crossbows are comparatively common armour in general has more or less had its day. They'll be a natural progression toward protecting vital parts of the body but ultimately emphasizing maneuverability as the best defense.
What you are probably referring to is the stiletto. With a weapon like this, it should be possible to penetrate the weak spots of plate armor (and penetrate chain mail easily, of course). As others have said before, a plate armor has to have gaps at the joints, otherwise the wearer could not move at all. Of course, it was tried to cover these with chain mail, but a stiletto could still cause nasty wounds - imagine one penetrating the elbow or knee joint, the pain alone whould be unbearable, to say nothing about the damage caused.
Stefan
In addition to other things:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rondel_(dagger)http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_spot_rondel.html
The MyArmoury link especially show several styles of dagger that were in use during the "plate period".
Besides pain, damage, etc. even if such a dagger got a hold of the armor but didn't even nick the wearer; you now have a giant handle/lever on your opponent }:D
|
Everyone has seemed to have forgotten that age-old tactic: stab him in the face. At the very least he's going to have a visor slot, which is more than you need to shove a dagger in.
Anyone ever watch Ninja Scroll? The monster that had stone for skin was completely impervious to blades, until the hero struck at the only soft spot - his eyes.
|
Everyone has seemed to have forgotten that age-old tactic: stab him in the face. At the very least he's going to have a visor slot, which is more than you need to shove a dagger in.
Anyone ever watch Ninja Scroll? The monster that had stone for skin was completely impervious to blades, until the hero struck at the only soft spot - his eyes.
[Minsk]Go for the eyes, Boo! Raaaarrrgh![/Minsk] ;-)
[Minsk]Go for the eyes, Boo! Raaaarrrgh![/Minsk] ;-)
Nice. :)
What about sheer penetrating power? Could an axe-swing or sword-thrust (or a stilleto, for that matter) pierce right through plate armor, providing the angle was such that it didn't just slide off? As has already been cited and is generally common knowledge amongst anyone who knows anything about the Middle Ages, crossbow bolts could accomplish such penetration just fine. Could a skilled combatant also punch through the steel of an enemy with a close-quarters handheld weapon?
[Minsk]Go for the eyes, Boo! Raaaarrrgh![/Minsk] ;-)Nice. :)
What about sheer penetrating power? Could an axe-swing or sword-thrust (or a stilleto, for that matter) pierce right through plate armor, providing the angle was such that it didn't just slide off? As has already been cited and is generally common knowledge amongst anyone who knows anything about the Middle Ages, crossbow bolts could accomplish such penetration just fine. Could a skilled combatant also punch through the steel of an enemy with a close-quarters handheld weapon?
Does it matter? As long as the force of the swing is great enough, you can always dent the armor sufficiently to break ribs or cause other internal bleeding which is sufficiently deadly as is.
Does it matter? As long as the force of the swing is great enough, you can always dent the armor sufficiently to break ribs or cause other internal bleeding which is sufficiently deadly as is.[Minsk]Go for the eyes, Boo! Raaaarrrgh![/Minsk] ;-)Nice. :)
What about sheer penetrating power? Could an axe-swing or sword-thrust (or a stilleto, for that matter) pierce right through plate armor, providing the angle was such that it didn't just slide off? As has already been cited and is generally common knowledge amongst anyone who knows anything about the Middle Ages, crossbow bolts could accomplish such penetration just fine. Could a skilled combatant also punch through the steel of an enemy with a close-quarters handheld weapon?
No, it doesn't really matter. Just a point of intellectual curiosity. Regardless of whether actual knights ever performed such deeds won't stop me from describing a critical hit in such a way; but my curiosity just wants an answer, regardless.
|
|
No, it doesn't really matter. Just a point of intellectual curiosity. Regardless of whether actual knights ever performed such deeds won't stop me from describing a critical hit in such a way; but my curiosity just wants an answer, regardless.Does it matter? As long as the force of the swing is great enough, you can always dent the armor sufficiently to break ribs or cause other internal bleeding which is sufficiently deadly as is.[Minsk]Go for the eyes, Boo! Raaaarrrgh![/Minsk] ;-)Nice. :)
What about sheer penetrating power? Could an axe-swing or sword-thrust (or a stilleto, for that matter) pierce right through plate armor, providing the angle was such that it didn't just slide off? As has already been cited and is generally common knowledge amongst anyone who knows anything about the Middle Ages, crossbow bolts could accomplish such penetration just fine. Could a skilled combatant also punch through the steel of an enemy with a close-quarters handheld weapon?
Although most injury to the full plate clad knight were of the dented armor causing futher injury type to answer your question yes there were several cases of the armor being penetrated.This was usually with a spear or other peircing weapon catching at the seams where the 2 halves joined, but I have seen a few peices of full plate cut by swords and axes in collections as well.
As others have mentioned, visor slots, joints, and the line where breastplate and backplate are buckled together are vulnerable to piercing weapons. The groin also--the skirting that covered the hips typically couldn't protect it because it needed a gap so that the knight could sit in his saddle. All these areas were protected by chainmail or boiled leather, but not as impenetrable as plate.
The earliest rapiers were not as thin as contemporary fencing foils--they were more slender than a longsword but still quite stiff, and a thrust with one off the back foot (with the whole body's mass behind it and the strength of both leg and arm driving it) could, in fact, pierce plate armor, if you hit at the right angle. They were designed for this purpose, in the late 15th century, IIRC, and were one of several advances that made plate armor obsolete. As noted above, most piercing weapons could pierce plate armor--if they struck at an angle perpendicular to the plate with enough force. Crossbow bolts, arrows fired from a longbow, blows from a military pick or lucern hammer (both designed for piercing armor), and of course lances, pikes or spears employed against a charging enemy could all pierce plate armor. Daggers might be useful at close quarters, or against a knight who was prone and couldn't easily stand up.
When fighting in plate armor, the idea wasn't that the armor would block all blows--a vicious sword or axe blow could also cut through, and a mace or morningstar on the helm could give you a nasty concussion even if it didn't dent the helm. The idea was that the plate armor would deflect glancing blows and make them harmless, and a skilled fighter could make use of this--a step to the side, a partial deflection with your shield or a partial parry would do the trick, whereas with lighter armor such tactics would still result in a wound. And you could use your vambraces or gauntlets to knock blows aside with less fear of a wound as well. In short, like any armor, plate armor merely makes you less vulnerable, not invulnerable.
Two other factors should be considered. First, with D&D's hit point system, 10 pts. of damage to a 1st level fighter doesn't produce the same wound as 10 pts. of damage to a 10th level fighter. The former is probably a pretty serious flesh wound--coming close to laming the novice fighter or something comparable. The latter probably represents at most a bruise, maybe just a bit of muscle fatigue from the effort to dodge or parry the blow. A high-level fighter in plate armor is actively using his armor to help lessen the impact of blows--the rapier thrust to the armpit and into the lung is the one that drops him from 4 hp to -3, not the one that drops him from 60 to 53.
Second, "plate armor" evolved over time and came in different grades. The thickest and most complete plate armor--the kind you often see in museums--was used only for tournaments and ceremonial purposes because it was too clumsy to be practical on the battlefield. Even still, lots of knights died from fatal wounds sustained in jousts (even though the lance tips were usually blunted). In fact most such suits of armor were made after people had begun to wear less armor on the battlefield due to guns, crossbows and lucerne hammers. The earliest types of plate armor, the ones that were actually used on battlefields during the 13th and 14th centuries, had a helm, breast and backplate, and plates strapped to the front of the legs. The arms, back of the legs, and neck were often covered only by chainmail. There was no gorget protecting the throat, the helm was often open (or partially so), and in short it provided protection that was better than straight chainmail, but far from complete. (This is "plate mail" vice "full plate" in D&D terms). Gradually more plate pieces were added to the kit, gorgets, roundels, "besagaws" (round metal plates mounted in front of the armpits for extra protection there), and so forth. The design of the armor also changed to make it harder to strike a square blow with a piercing weapon or dent with a blunt one, with beavered helms, fluting, and so forth. As with modern weaponry, there was a constant back and forth in technical innovations to defensive equipment and offensive equipment, so that at any given moment the balance might shift between the two, but in general there was always some possibility of hurting your enemy.
For a better idea, go to the library and get a picture book on medieval arms and armor. It'll show you examples of what the stuff actually looked like, and make it easier to describe what's going on in your game.
In my games, if an incoming attack has the "potential" to penetrate the material of the armor by doing enough damage to get through hardness, I describe the hit as an actual armor puncturing/crushing/rending hit. Ogres frequently dent breastplates, and charging minotaurs leave a lot of holes in armor.
Thanks, all, and particularly Peruhain! Like I said, I've wasted my fair share of time looking over Wikipedia and other sites at armor and learning some of the basic terminology of the components; but actual information about what it could and could not actually do has been sparse; likewise for the weapons against which plate mail was used. Like a lot of DMs, I hate it when descriptions come down to just "He misses, you hit, roll damage;" but "You deliver a powerful blow to the knight" doesn't capture enough of the imagery of the combat for me, either. I'd previously felt too ignorant on the subject matter to provide much more detail before. The comments in this thread alone make me feel much more capable of describing combat the way I would like. Thanks again.
|
|
In my games, if an incoming attack has the "potential" to penetrate the material of the armor by doing enough damage to get through hardness, I describe the hit as an actual armor puncturing/crushing/rending hit. Ogres frequently dent breastplates, and charging minotaurs leave a lot of holes in armor.
I like this I think this a very good way to help in the description of combat...now I gotta start listing hardness on my armor sheets. :)
Have a look at the AD&D PLayers Handbook, Pg 90. It's Weapon Type vs. Arour modifiers - optional rule. We used to use this years ago to have a bit more sensibility to the combat.
The way I read is that Piercing weapons get a penalty of 3 when attacking Full PLate adversaries, as opposed to a bonus of 2 for Leather Armour. Slowed down play a bit was more realistic. Exactly like bludgeoning weapons against skeletons etc which I believe is still used in 3.5?
Also of interest is weapon speed. Makes sense that a dagger would strike before a greatsword - another sensible rule from the old school stuff.
Yes, skeletons in 3.5 are still vulnerable to bludeoning weapons (or more accurately, are resistant to everything else).
I agree that, if the goal is realism of combat, daggers should swing faster than greatswords and thus get more attacks in a given period of time; but regarding the dagger going first, that depends. It also makes sense that the greatsword-wielding warrior should get an attack against the dagger-wielding opponent as he comes within the sword's superior reach. If the dagger-user gets through that attack, then he's in a superior position to do some damage which the now-defender will have more difficulty escaping. So, the greatsword may well strike first, even though the dagger can strike more quickly.
Of course, finding a way to represent different weapon sizes (more than the number of hands it takes to wield the things or if they can be used in a grapple), and the speed with which the weapons strike, all in a relaltively simple rule which could be implemented at the table and not overly slow the already cumbersome 3.5 combat system... therein lies the challenge.
Have a look at the AD&D PLayers Handbook, Pg 90. It's Weapon Type vs. Arour modifiers - optional rule. We used to use this years ago to have a bit more sensibility to the combat.
This depends very much if you want realistic rules or realistic sounding descriptions of what happens in combat - while these things are close, they are not identical. With any incarnation of the D&D rules, it is probably easier to resort to realistic sounding descriptions, as the rules are not exactly built for simulating realistic combat.
Stefan
Have a look at the AD&D PLayers Handbook, Pg 90. It's Weapon Type vs. Arour modifiers - optional rule. We used to use this years ago to have a bit more sensibility to the combat.
This depends very much if you want realistic rules or realistic sounding descriptions of what happens in combat - while these things are close, they are not identical. With any incarnation of the D&D rules, it is probably easier to resort to realistic sounding descriptions, as the rules are not exactly built for simulating realistic combat.
Stefan
I agree. The trick, as mentioned above, is getting the description to match the dice outcome. I've used a 10 second timer in combat to speed things up - i.e. the player has 10 secs to decide what to do, then we do the dice etc. Still, DnD is an RPG, not a combat sim, so it will always have inconsistencies in the combat area. That's ok with me becuase it allows for different styles of game.
Some ppl love to involve the armour/weapon stuff more than others. I would pose this question to the OP: If you did infact introduce alot more realism into the combat aspect of armour/weapons, wouldn't you have to do the same for spells? Shouldn't a fighter in Full Plate be more protected against many spells (fireball) than if he/she were in Leather?
The trick, as mentioned above, is getting the description to match the dice outcome.
I would pose this question to the OP: If you did infact introduce alot more realism into the combat aspect of armour/weapons, wouldn't you have to do the same for spells? Shouldn't a fighter in Full Plate be more protected against many spells (fireball) than if he/she were in Leather?
No, because of what you just said:
The trick, as mentioned above, is getting the description to match the dice outcome.
That is my opinion, as well. My goal with this thread was not to come up with a new mechanical system for combat; it was to get more ideas of how to better describe the system which is already in place. The d20 roll of an attack, skill, etc., already represents all those hundreds and thousands of little factors which are too transient and too complex to actually account for and combine into an equation. Therefore, it is the DM's job to let the mechanics of the system dictate success, failure, and the degree thereof; and then to match his or her desription of that success or failure to the result of the dice.
In my games, if an incoming attack has the "potential" to penetrate the material of the armor by doing enough damage to get through hardness, I describe the hit as an actual armor puncturing/crushing/rending hit. Ogres frequently dent breastplates, and charging minotaurs leave a lot of holes in armor.I like this I think this a very good way to help in the description of combat...now I gotta start listing hardness on my armor sheets. :)
Just go with 5 for non-metal armors and wooden shields, 10 for metal armors and shields. Its quick and dirty, but its easy to remember, close enough to the actual numbers 90% of the time, and doesn't mean looking up something else with each attack roll. Bonus points if you can determine how the hit landed based on the combination of the actual die roll and the end result after attack bonus, relative to the various AC components on the defending side.