just my 2 cents but ask a modern soldier to run in his armor (which is a padded breast plate made with canvas and ceramic and a helmet made of carbon fiber, glue and canvas) it sucks, it sucks like hell and i would say that it is a light ACP since its both lighter and more flexible then most of the armor in rpg.
Medival people didn't run around in scale mail or heavier armor on foot during battles... that's a movie thingy.
Infantry usually wore nothing that was heavier/more cumbersome then breastplate, as anything more would be too heavy and restrictive on foot.
Full plate was pretty much cavalry-only.
Also the medival texts I've seen, describe how gambeson (~padded armor) is worn under chain mail because you'd be rubbed raw if you were wearing that chainmail over a simple shirt. Also plate mail was worn over chain parts to protect those flexible parts.
I dare ANYONE to swim with a full suit of armor... that malus should at least be double!
I've done some training as lifeguard and had to swim in a full set of clothes. Not some light t-shirt and shorts... an ankle-long loose-fitting jeans and a shirt made of rigid heavy cloth (~jeans jacket with long sleeves), with shoes and all. Try it... and thats just cloth. Now put on a weight belt like the ones used for diving and try again... good luck.
Metal does NOT float!
I'd rather remove all ACP's, except Stealth.
Depending on the kind of armor the stealth penalty is the silliest of all.
I have worn medival armor (remakes) often enough.If you wear chain armor (what I got is somewhere between chain shirt and chain mail) and other layers of clothes or stuff over it you hardly hear it.
What I was often wearing was a thick linnen shirt, then chain armor, then a thin tunic/robe with lots of fur all over it. It was a real chain armor made of steel rings.
If I jumped up and down with it you could hear it if the surrounding was silent.
So if you (for any reason) want to make the armor rules more realistic you got a truckload of work to do.
Just saying armor only gives penalties to stealth makes the rules definitely worse than RAW.
I'd rather remove all ACP's, except Stealth.Depending on the kind of armor the stealth penalty is the silliest of all.
I have worn medival armor (remakes) often enough.
If you wear chain armor (what I got is somewhere between chain shirt and chain mail) and other layers of clothes or stuff over it you hardly hear it.What I was often wearing was a thick linnen shirt, then chain armor, then a thin tunic/robe with lots of fur all over it. It was a real chain armor made of steel rings.
If I jumped up and down with it you could hear it if the surrounding was silent.So if you (for any reason) want to make the armor rules more realistic you got a truckload of work to do.
Just saying armor only gives penalties to stealth makes the rules definitely worse than RAW.
Well generally speaking the RAW do reflect that chain is not as loud as plate.
The problem that is coming up is and I can see why it upsets people wanting strict realism is that check penalty is a system to cover a number of things with the same mechanic. Climbing and swimming might be harder than disabling a device but the unified mechanic applies. I also think that at sometimes GM's or adventure writes put in skill checks in adventures as obstacles that call for skill checks that apply poorly. Acrobatics checks to cross rope bridges (out of combat mind you). There are ways that sometimes I think the check penalty is used as a mechanical foil that makes the characters rather gimpy.
[
The question is, what is "all the difference"? Because it's probably not the difference between success and failure at getting over the hurdle.
your adventurer in plate mail can eventually get to the top of the mountain, its just a question of whether he does so before being eaten
If heavy armor were really as cumbersome as the rules depict it to be, real-life warriors throughout human history would have never worn it.
In my experience preventing the potential damage caused to a combatant with armor far exceeds the detriment to mobility and dexterity. I would have never participated in SCA combat without armor, despite it being somewhat cumbersome. The dexterity requirements for swinging a sword is much less than that of most dexterity based skills.
Real life warriors did wear cumbersome armor as protection is more important than mobility in close combat.
This post would have been better if you mentioned that you typed it while wearing steel gauntlets.
+1
I just laughed out loud at that, and now the people in the are are giving me funny looks.
Honestly, I've never encountered these issues before, because when my full-plated player falls off the boat, the first thing he thinks is, Holy feck, gotta get out of this armor! Which is probably as realistic as you get.
Thanks to you folks, though, I'm going to add a few little houserules into my fine print. The Swim skill no longer exists in chainmail or heavier. The Sneak skill penalties may be bypassed with extraneous measures (oiling your chain, or moving even slower). Certain Sleight or Disable checks may be made without penalties by removing their gauntlets. (Free action, probably, even if that isn't entirely realistic. Definitely a standard action to put 'em back on.) As for acrobatics...totally situation-dependent. All I know is, when I wear armor, tumbling is something I do by accident.
Gotta love Folding Plate when it comes time to take a swim.
- Gauss
@Stubs - Fair point, though I'd argue that most of this time is properly unstrapping, untying, and unbuckling...a dagger could probably strip a few minutes off that, and hopefully someone's jumped after him, which will help even more. Either way, it's a heck of a lot more likely than swimming away in the stuff.
just my 2 cents but ask a modern soldier to run in his armor (which is a padded breast plate made with canvas and ceramic and a helmet made of carbon fiber, glue and canvas) it sucks, it sucks like hell and i would say that it is a light ACP since its both lighter and more flexible then most of the armor in rpg.
I was just about to bring that up. I am sure the armor worm to protect soldier from shrapnel is a lot more comfortable than a walking metal suit.
I hated wearing body armor. I probably could have picked a lock easily enough, but as for acrobatics, swimming, and climbing it is definitely a factor. The weight alone is a factor, and metal armor is even heavier. Once you get past that you have to deal with restrict movement, and those metal gloves which wound interfere with picking locks.
You guys make good points. Thanks for the input.
I still think max dex. modifier and limited mobility is probably enough of a punishment, but I understand your arguments.
My reasoning is that (save for encumbrance) armor limits your mobility, but does not reduce it. It's no like you become worse at doing acrobatics (suffers a penalty), you just can't do it as well as unarmored (Max Dex modifier).
I also have a question for people who are/were in the military. I'm guessing your backpack was pretty heavy too. Did it hamper your mobility more or less than your body armor? No sarcasm at all, its a honest question.
All said:
I dare ANYONE to swim with a full suit of armor... that malus should at least be double!I've done some training as lifeguard and had to swim in a full set of clothes. Not some light t-shirt and shorts... an ankle-long loose-fitting jeans and a shirt made of rigid heavy cloth (~jeans jacket with long sleeves), with shoes and all. Try it... and thats just cloth. Now put on a weight belt like the ones used for diving and try again... good luck.
Metal does NOT float!
I'd say clothes are actually a lot more cumbersome than metal when underwater. Clothes absorb water, so they get a lot heavier. Metal, on the other hand, does not.
In fact, I dare say its a lot easier to raise a heavy piece of metal over your head underwater than on dry land (well, except for the "I can't breath!" problem)Between swiming with steel armor or an equally heavy set of clothes... Well, I'd stay on dry-land, but I guess doing it with armor would be easier (considering only weight, not limitations to mobility).
Many of them did not. The full armored metal tank warrior is a relatively thin slice of the history of armored combat. Naval forces kept themselves lightly armored at best.
Well, yeah. Fall off a boat in a mink coat and you're as good as dead. Jack LaLanne swam across a harbor pulling a tugboat behind him to celebrate his 80th birthday, and even he couldn't have swum laps at the municipal pool in a suit of six-in-one.
On the other hand, outside of the Navy, the main reason that normal infantry forces didn't wear metal armor was that it was too expensive to equip everyone. And that's just as true today as it was twelve hundred years ago. Heat and encumbrance have always been secondary concerns, and pretty much limited only to forces that needed to move long distances fast on foot and forces that were fighting in the tropics.
Firearms killed personal armor, but not for the reason most people think-- heavy plate was designed to stop bullets and it worked. The problem was that for the cost of a single knight's armor, you could have three or four unarmored cavalry.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can't help but think that Ned Kelly deserves mention at this point.
|
Going back a bit to earlier complaints about the simulation aspect of armor penalties (ie. why would anyone bother), I think it has a lot to do with how the relative AC values have remained the same while the bonuses to hit and damage have compounded considerably. In previous editions you were lucky to have somewhere around +4 as a fighter. That's mediocre in 3.X.
Armor really needed a boost for Pathfinder but it didn't get one, further diminishing its relevance mechanically and therefore in-game. A good start would be either pasting on scaling DR, and/or slightly increased AC bonuses.
You guys make good points. Thanks for the input.
I still think max dex. modifier and limited mobility is probably enough of a punishment, but I understand your arguments.
My reasoning is that (save for encumbrance) armor limits your mobility, but does not reduce it. It's no like you become worse at doing acrobatics (suffers a penalty), you just can't do it as well as unarmored (Max Dex modifier).
I also have a question for people who are/were in the military. I'm guessing your backpack was pretty heavy too. Did it hamper your mobility more or less than your body armor? No sarcasm at all, its a honest question.
The backpack seemed more cumbersome when it came to moving(climbing, running) to me because the weight was not distributed across your body equally. As far as moving my arms in a variety of positions, it did not bother me. We generally did not do combat drills with the backpack on though. We just used it to haul stuff. For combat essential stuff we had the LBE(Load bearing equipment) which allowed us to carry grenades, ammo, and other essential things.
Going back a bit to earlier complaints about the simulation aspect of armor penalties (ie. why would anyone bother), I think it has a lot to do with how the relative AC values have remained the same while the bonuses to hit and damage have compounded considerably. In previous editions you were lucky to have somewhere around +4 as a fighter. That's mediocre in 3.X.
Armor really needed a boost for Pathfinder but it didn't get one, further diminishing its relevance mechanically and therefore in-game. A good start would be either pasting on scaling DR, and/or slightly increased AC bonuses.
Not to thread derail, but that's exactly why I'm curious about how D&D Next's static bonuses will work out; I want a +1 Longsword that means something!
D20 works exactly how the uninitiated would expect up until level 8 or so, and then it turns into the system mastery game. That's not an insult, I play E8.
|
|
Going back a bit to earlier complaints about the simulation aspect of armor penalties (ie. why would anyone bother), I think it has a lot to do with how the relative AC values have remained the same while the bonuses to hit and damage have compounded considerably. In previous editions you were lucky to have somewhere around +4 as a fighter. That's mediocre in 3.X.
Armor really needed a boost for Pathfinder but it didn't get one, further diminishing its relevance mechanically and therefore in-game. A good start would be either pasting on scaling DR, and/or slightly increased AC bonuses.
Not to thread derail, but that's exactly why I'm curious about how D&D Next's static bonuses will work out; I want a +1 Longsword that means something!
D20 works exactly how the uninitiated would expect up until level 8 or so, and then it turns into the system mastery game. That's not an insult, I play E8.
Of all the suggestions in 5e, the slower escalation is the most endearing to me, as long as it applies to damage and hit points as well!
...The penalties for wearing armor are absolutely ridiculous and just one more way that the designers of 3.0 D&D went out of their way-- completely, unjustifiably out of their way-- to screw over Fighters in the name of unrealistic 'realism'.
If heavy armor were really as cumbersome as the rules depict it to be, real-life warriors throughout human history would have never worn it.
The reduced moevement rate and inability to run? Make perfect sense. The penalties to Stealth and Swim checks? Just about right. The penalty to Acrobatics, Climb, Escape Artist, and Sleight of Hand? Need to be halved. The penalties to Disable Device and Ride should be eliminated entirely.
And the 'maximum Dexterity bonus to AC' needs to have its head severed, stuffed with garlic, and buried separately from its body-- which would be buried at a crossroads with a stake through its heart-- in a location clearly marked 'THIS IS NOT A PLACE OF HONOR' in every language spoken by Man and angels with burning swords standing guard to prevent foolhardy grave robbers and game designers from ever even thinking about trying to dig up such an inexcusably stupid mechanic ever again. It is the very worst kind of fool-headed idiotic unrealistic 'realism' to have ever blighted a fundamentally and deliberately mythic roleplaying game in the history of roleplaying games.
The worst part of it is, in the game from which this ill-conceived abomination of a rule was derived, it actually worked. That game was actually detailed enough and realistic enough that even with mobility penalties, armor was useful enough that wearing the heaviest armor you could afford and were trained in was an absolute no-brainer for anyone who didn't have to walk around naked for spellcasting purposes.
But that game was Rolemaster, and rules that work in Rolemaster have absolutely no place whatsoever in a game as abstract and
Exactly! Or let's get into this more. I am typing on this keyboard without gloves, if I put on thick motor cycle gloves, I am going to make a lot of mistakes, it is going to be clumsy and hard. Now I learned how to pick simple locks a few years back, and I can do it, without heavy gloves or gauntlets in the way. Put on some annoying hand gear, heavy leather gloves etc, and I lose the small bonus I have, you cannot feel the tumblers. Simply can't do it. If you watch locksmiths, they won't try and do it in winter gear, it is a sensitive task requiring touch.
As I mentioned above with actual armour, it doesn't prevent you from moving, it just slows you down, makes you more clumsy, heavy, damages fine footwork "excuse me I'd like to avoid that axe". Max dex to armour also makes sense. It isn't cloth (and even a padded gambeson is a big, thick and annoying to wear thing).
The armour penalty rules are fine, except they should stack, if you add more the penalty should be more. Penalties should not be the same in full plate as being in full plate, with a tower shield and at heavy encumberance. Please correct me if I have made any mistakes on the rules, good day all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Stubs, it amuses me when recreationists bring up reality in a fictional game that has about as much to do with reality as a science fiction novel. They rarely look at the entire game (just their narrow pet peeve of the moment).
Don't get me wrong, recreationist games rock. D&D/PF is just not one of them.
- Gauss
P.S. recreationist in this case means anyone that is trying to make a fiction game like D&D/PF closer to reality.
|
Whew thank god they made the rule that you cant disable device/take any sort of penalty at all while wearing gloves.... oh wait, there isnt that rule.
And thank god tumbling isnt allowed if you are carrying a polearm, a ladder, a 10 ft pole, grappling hook + rope, a tent, and 100 lbs of other gear on your back... hold on... nope no rule for that either.
There is, it's call encumbrance.....Sorry there is not a thousand penalties for every odd shaped gear, armor is easy to understand as it is worn (only one at a time) and sensible as most use it and lump the rest by weight
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe I can contribute to this a bit.
I practice medieval sword fighting, based on a 14th century manuscripts of Fiore dei Liberi. This western martial art is designed so that it can be done in armor or without armor. Unlike the fencer who posted earlier, the movements I make work well regardless of whether I am wearing armor or not.
I have a set of armor that is based on the armor recovered from the archeological dig at the site of the Battle of Wisby (or Visby). My armor is strips of metal that are covered in leather, a coat of plates, with arms and leg armor also based on that style. With the helmet, it weights in at around 60 pounds. I don't really notice the weight when I am wearing it, and I have worn it all day on more than one occasion (even spend a full day wearing it at work last halloween).
The harness is a component often overlooked by many, but it is extremely important, it is what holds your armor in place, the armoring jacket, the straps, armoring points, etc. A badly set up harness will make wearing armor uncomfortable, even painful.
I am fairly silent when I move around in my armor. My buddy has a set of plate mail and he is not silent at all.
I have done forward rolls in armor (not gracefully, but then again, I have yet to master rolling gracefully even without armor). I haven't been able to do rolls when wearing a fanny pack or backpack (doing it with a fanny pack hurts, a lot).
At a tournament that I was at recently, one of the guys was showing off some new plate armor that he had and he danced a jig with it on, apparently without any effort or problems.
The biggest problems that I had with wearing the armor for long periodes are the heat and the fact that I don't have medieval pants (going to the washroom can be a pain if certain parts don't unlace), and the reduced visibility when wearing a full helm.
In conclusion, there is a small reduction in mobility and flexibility, which varies according to the armor used, but I don't believe that it is as great as the current ACPs. It is porbably not worth changing the current system, as it would go to far into the weeds for the possible benefit.
Mist, I'm certainly not looking to argue with your experience, but:
Your description sounds like banded mail to me to me, which gives a max dex bonus to AC of +1 and an armor check penalty of -6; given the skill advancement in 3.5/PF, that sounds like exactly what you're describing: a small reduction in mobility and flexibility.
I suppose I'm turning the conversation into "What do you think your level based skill bonus is in the real world?" which isn't exactly helpful.
Mist, I'm certainly not looking to argue with your experience, but:
Your description sounds like banded mail to me to me, which gives a max dex bonus to AC of +1 and an armor check penalty of -6; given the skill advancement in 3.5/PF, that sounds like exactly what you're describing: a small reduction in mobility and flexibility.
I suppose I'm turning the conversation into "What do you think your level based skill bonus is in the real world?" which isn't exactly helpful.
No problem.
Yes, the closest thing to my armor in Pathfinder is banded mail, but with the leather on the top and not being the backing. But I do not consider a -6 penalty to be a small reduction in flexibility.
With my armor, I would say that there is no movement penalty, no ride penalty, no stealth penalty, a small acrobatic penalty, a moderate swim penalty, a large disable device penalty (while wearing gauntlets - the easiest thing to take off and put on - for lock-picking, but not for jamming a piton between floor tiles), a large sleigth of hand penalty, a variable escape artist penalty and I have no idea on what the fly penalty would be.
My buddy in plate armor would have a large stealth penalty, a moderate acrobatic penalty, with the rest staying around the same places.
To me, it would be more trouble that it would be worth to set up all of the above penalties, based on the armor and keep track of it on character sheets. It is much easier to have a standard penalty for each broad armor type than to break it down.
The only change that I would consider making would be to remove the ACP to the ride skill. While riding a mount into combat, you are not doing acrobatic trick riding - you are often in a military saddle (and perhaps tied into place), guiding your mount by knee, foot and voice (most likely).
Max. Dex bonus to AC 1 and ACP -6 isn't exactly a "small" reduction in moblity and flexibility.
Honestly. AC stops being relevant at higher level. Most things that will bother with physical attack have huge BAB + Lots of Strength.
Even if ACP is realistic and not exaggerated at all. I'd rather remove (or at least reduce them). Martials need all the nice things they can get. That limited mobility + dex limitation (to AC) + ACP sounds way too much.
Even more so if we consider these characters live in a world where you can kill a titan by repeatedly stepping on its toes. It could even be a gradual reduction, like Armor Training. (Of course, this woudl mean fighter would have to be compensated for "losing" the class feature. Then again, Fighter should get a lot more of nice things anyway.)
I was actually considering giving a scaling bonus to AC based on BAB to all characters, but I didn't do it out of fear of unbalance (not class X class, but class X encounter) as I didn't have the time to make it so AC stays decent at higher level but not too good at lower levels.
It'd make sense, as a character who learns to fight better would probably learn to defend herself better too. My initial idea was an AC bonus equal to (BAB+1)/3 (rounded down).
This way, fighters would end with a +7 at 20th level, rogues would get a +5 and casters, a +3. Maybe the bonus for fighter could be higher, like 1/2 Fighter levels or the normal (BAB+1)/3, whichever is higher.
But I digress...
IMO, ACP is acceptable, capping dex to AC is acceptable, reduced mobility is acceptable... All of them together: excessive.
I think it'd make more sense and be more balanced if armor reduced Dex to AC (like it does to skills) instead of capping it. Do the guys with experience in donning armor agree?
And maybe ACPs could be reduced to 0 (or -1) for light armor, -2 for medium armor and -4 for heavy armor. Unless the armor provides an exceptional bonus to AC.
To me, it would be more trouble that it would be worth to set up all of the above penalties, based on the armor and keep track of it on character sheets. It is much easier to have a standard penalty for each broad armor type than to break it down.The only change that I would consider making would be to remove the ACP to the ride skill. While riding a mount into combat, you are not doing acrobatic trick riding - you are often in a military saddle (and perhaps tied into place), guiding your mount by knee, foot and voice (most likely).
I'd compromise on a reduced ACP and limit to mobility. Maybe also substitute the "Dex to AC" cap with a similar Dex penalty to AC (but can't reduce it to less than 0) and let the rest be handled by encumbrance rules.
This way martials get a nice bonus without even coming close to unbalacing the game and it still illustrates the limitations of donning armor.
Isn't that why good money goes into better armor? To reduce the ACP, increase the max dex as well as. I certainly can see that somethings might be lessened and others increased but I think that ACP makes good sense as a system. When you look at fighters who are more dedicated to armor than most they get armor training which again reduces the check penalty. Honestly if ACP was so horrible wouldn't all fighters go duelist?
only the smart ones, gnomez. :P
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Swim skill no longer exists in chainmail or heavier.
As a HOUSE RULE, I use the old v3.5 rule that ACP is doubled for swim checks.
Our plate-wearing dwarven characters generally get a wand of that spell that englobes your head with an airpocket and simply trudge along the bottom like the skeletons in that pirate movie.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And thank god tumbling isnt allowed if you are carrying a polearm, a ladder, a 10 ft pole, grappling hook + rope, a tent, and 100 lbs of other gear on your back... hold on... nope no rule for that either.
One time group made fun of my for leaving my polearm outside of a crawlspace. My shortsword seemed a safer bet. Another time in the same group I was made fun of for tumbling into a flank with my greatsword out. Gotta love friends.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And thank god tumbling isnt allowed if you are carrying a polearm, a ladder, a 10 ft pole, grappling hook + rope, a tent, and 100 lbs of other gear on your back... hold on... nope no rule for that either.One time group made fun of my for leaving my polearm outside of a crawlspace. My shortsword seemed a safer bet. Another time in the same group I was made fun of for tumbling into a flank with my greatsword out. Gotta love friends.
Good on you man.
Yeah I've made some easy houserules for using weapons in confined spaces. If you don't have free space around you, if it is a tight tunnel, large weapons are one -4, medium on -2, small or light on no penalties. If it is even more cramped, double penalties for medium and large stuff becomes unusable.
So yes, you can't use your giant sword for all situations (the greatsword is an open battlefield weapon, not for tunnel shivving work). This has led to some wondrous developments, the players start to think what is best for the situation, they ask me if the tunnel is too tight for a greatsword/great falchion, and they make sure to carry back ups and smaller weapons. This ties in with a trait system I've added for all weapons. Weapons have merits, flaws and character, e.g. maces cause small amounts of sundual damage if you miss the foe but hit the armour or shield.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And thank god tumbling isnt allowed if you are carrying a polearm, a ladder, a 10 ft pole, grappling hook + rope, a tent, and 100 lbs of other gear on your back... hold on... nope no rule for that either.One time group made fun of my for leaving my polearm outside of a crawlspace. My shortsword seemed a safer bet. Another time in the same group I was made fun of for tumbling into a flank with my greatsword out. Gotta love friends.Good on you man.
Yeah I've made some easy houserules for using weapons in confined spaces. If you don't have free space around you, if it is a tight tunnel, large weapons are one -4, medium on -2, small or light on no penalties. If it is even more cramped, double penalties for medium and large stuff becomes unusable.
So yes, you can't use your giant sword for all situations (the greatsword is an open battlefield weapon, not for tunnel shivving work). This has led to some wondrous developments, the players start to think what is best for the situation, they ask me if the tunnel is too tight for a greatsword/great falchion, and they make sure to carry back ups and smaller weapons. This ties in with a trait system I've added for all weapons. Weapons have merits, flaws and character, e.g. maces cause small amounts of sundual damage if you miss the foe but hit the armour or shield.
Sounds like a fun game!
On armour and checks specifically, this is what I did. Below it is a bit messy, but armour types are more distinguished and I had a lot of fun with medium armours (bodkins are a type of arrow which do 1 bleed the following round after a hit, there are three types at this stage.
Armour Cost AC Bonus Special/ Damage Reduction Max Dex Bonus Check Penalty Spell Failure
Light armour
Padded/Wicker 3 gp +1 Easy to fashion +8 –0 5%
Leather Cuirass 9 gp +2 Common +6 –0 10%
Wooden Training Gear 15 gp +3 Weighs the same as Scale +4 –3 25%
Leather Scale/Silk 35/90 gp +3 Silk: +1 ac against ranged +6 –2 15%
Studded Leather/Light brigandine 40 gp +3 Easily disguised, concealed pockets +5 –1 15%
Light Chain Hauberk 100 gp +4 Common +4 –2 20%
Medium armour
Hide 15 gp +3 Provides warmth, can sleep in it +3 –3 20%
Killer Crab Shell 50 gp +3 +1 intimidate +4 –2 20%
Brigandine 55 gp +4 Affordable, concealed pockets +2 –4 30%
Scale Armour 75 gp +4 +1 ac against bludgeoning, maces do no subdual +3 –4 30%
Ring Coat/Chitin 80 gp +4 Lightest med armour +4 –3 25%
Chainmail 130 gp +5 Abundant, +1 to diplomacy with soldiers +2 –5 35%
Lamellar 200 gp +5 Bodkins do not work +3 –4 30%
Heavy armour
Heavy Chainmail 400 gp +7 Easily made +2 –7 40%
Heavy Lamellar 600 gp +8 Bodkins do not work +1 –7 40%
Full Plate mw 1,600 gp +9 DR 1 +1 –6 35%
Onion Plate mw 1,800 gp +10 DR 1 +0 –8 50%
Shields
Buckler 5 gp +1 - - –1 5%
Shield, light 30 gp +2 - - –1 5%
Shield, heavy 60 gp +3 - - –2 15%
Shield, tower 120 gp +4 - +3 –4 40%
Armour check penalties and spell failure percentages stack.
Penalty to attack when using a tower shield is removed. The Romans or Greeks had no trouble hitting.
Some Armour has damage reduction, armour is generally considered to have damage reduction if there is no plausible way a weapon could sneak in.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just throwing this out there, but one major tactic when plate armor was popular was knocking an opponent over and then finishing them off by poking at their armpits or neck- It was apparently quite difficult to simply stand back up after being toppled in plate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
However thats not convered by they rules super heavy loads and armor don't hinder you standing up at all.
|
|
Just throwing this out there, but one major tactic when plate armor was popular was knocking an opponent over and then finishing them off by poking at their armpits or neck- It was apparently quite difficult to simply stand back up after being toppled in plate.
Yes, the misericorde was designed for this purpose. It also explains the abundance of polearms designed to trip and disarm.
@Talonhawke: Pretty easy to do it:
Prone:
When wearing medium or heavy armor, standing from prone requires a DC 12 Strength check to stand as a full-round action. Failure indicates the character remains prone. A character that receives help can stand as a move action without a Strength check.
A prone character wearing medium or heavy armor is flat-footed.
A fighter ignores these penalties when wearing medium armor. At 7th level, a fighter also ignores these penalties when wearing heavy armor.
Keep in mind, these rules would be meant to be employed in a game where armor is significantly more useful!
I guess the problem with falling over as an armoured knight, is that you would be swarmed with commoners kicking and trying to stab you.
Just throwing this out there, but one major tactic when plate armor was popular was knocking an opponent over and then finishing them off by poking at their armpits or neck- It was apparently quite difficult to simply stand back up after being toppled in plate.
Not that difficult to do at all. A little more awkward yes, but not difficult.
In pretty much any fight, if you can get your opponent on the ground you have a major advantage over them.
Because the armpits and neck cannot be as well armored as other places, they are two of the main targets when fighting an armored foe. When they are standing, they can be difficult targets to hit. But when the opponent is prone, it is much easier to grab an arm (or the head/helmet), yank it out of place and stab into the armpit (neck) with a dagger (rondel dagger).
So, any of you actually studied medieval warfare?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, any of you actually studied medieval warfare?
What do you mean by study medieval warfare?
If you mean practicing medieval sword fighting, in armor and out of armor, then yes, I do.
If you mean study the strategies, tactics, logistics, etc.. of medieval warfare, then not so much.
Cool. How do you study? Are you part of a research institute? Are you academically trained? What are your sources?
The medieval sword fighting that I do is based on a 14th century manuscripts of Fiore dei Liberi.
I am part of a group that meets at least once a week, with about 20 or so that are there on a regular basis.
The group that I belong to is Les Maitres d'Armes.
An internation group that Les Maitres d'Armes is part of is The Chivalric Fighting Arts Association.
Those two links should answer a lot of your questions.
Okay good, looks cool. However I'm looking more for actual time-appropriate texts describing the experiences of actual soldiers in armour. Academic historical appraisal of such texts is a pre.
Otherwise this thread devolves into anecdotal evidence which is even anachronistic. As evidence by the perpetuation of various myths pertaining to the encumbrance of medieval armour contained within. :(
It's kinda tragic that we, as roleplayers, seem to base our entire understanding of Asian martial arts on European misunderstandings of them and our entire understanding of European martial arts on Asian misunderstandings of them.