That being said is it easier or more difficult to move quietly with armor on? Is it easier to climb a rope with armor on? Is it easier to do a combat roll with armor on?
I would imagine that the answer to all of these is no. You could argue that a combat roll is easier with armor on due to padding- but if thats your argument I promise you are not doing it right.
Move silently in my armor, not any harder than normal.
Move silently in my buddy's plate armor, much harder.Climb a rope? for most set ups, difficult as a lot of times your leg armor will not conform to the rope to help you move up or down.
Combat roll is easier on rough terrain - it hurts less
Combat roll on a flat surface (salle, asphalt road, etc) is a bit harder. Padding has nothing to do with it - it a a loss of flexibility in your torso.
No one said it was easier to do these things with armor on.
That being said is it easier or more difficult to move quietly with armor on? Is it easier to climb a rope with armor on? Is it easier to do a combat roll with armor on?I would imagine that the answer to all of these is no. You could argue that a combat roll is easier with armor on due to padding- but if thats your argument I promise you are not doing it right.
But isn't that the point? If it is more difficult with armor on the minus to skill makes sense. Its harder to ride a horse with armor on, otherwise jockeys would ware platemail. Its harder to run, and swim, and climb, and sneak.
If those are more difficult with armor then its a fair system. If it is no more difficult then they should not be there. I cannot believe it is no more difficult with armor on.
And even personal experience can really only matter so much. Yes training makes things easier, but it also makes you more sensitive to when things are less than perfect. At the highest level of skill even a minor inconvenience can become a major problem. Thats why runners work to remove as much weight off of themselves as they can, .25 seconds a lap adds up.
When you do something everyday for several hours a day you begin to notice how a small thing can really detract from your best performance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That being said is it easier or more difficult to move quietly with armor on? Is it easier to climb a rope with armor on? Is it easier to do a combat roll with armor on?
I would imagine that the answer to all of these is no. You could argue that a combat roll is easier with armor on due to padding- but if thats your argument I promise you are not doing it right.
Move silently in my armor, not any harder than normal.
Move silently in my buddy's plate armor, much harder.Climb a rope? for most set ups, difficult as a lot of times your leg armor will not conform to the rope to help you move up or down.
Combat roll is easier on rough terrain - it hurts less
Combat roll on a flat surface (salle, asphalt road, etc) is a bit harder. Padding has nothing to do with it - it a a loss of flexibility in your torso.
It may not be harder to move silently with your armor on... I have a hard time believing that 100%, but sneaking (which I did not say) I think would be.
You have bright shiny plates on your shoulders. You have a larger silhouette. So while you may be able to be just as quiet (though it seems like a gymn shorts, a t-shirt, and soft soled shoes would HAVE to be quieter) you would still be at a disadvantage in being undetected.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The minuses are too extreme is common consensus, and another issue is balance. Martial classes suck enough already, why do they need more nerfs?
Naw martial classes are boss. And who cares about balance. I saw people arguing realism, and when we establish that its real enough people complain about balance. I am not competing at the table, I'm having fun. I like rogues because when played right they can get out of a lot of trouble. They are not less effective than other classes, just different effective.
I don't care if my fighter is less powerful than the wizard at 17th level, I had fun playing him the whole way regardless.
That being said is it easier or more difficult to move quietly with armor on? Is it easier to climb a rope with armor on? Is it easier to do a combat roll with armor on?
I would imagine that the answer to all of these is no. You could argue that a combat roll is easier with armor on due to padding- but if thats your argument I promise you are not doing it right.
Move silently in my armor, not any harder than normal.
Move silently in my buddy's plate armor, much harder.Climb a rope? for most set ups, difficult as a lot of times your leg armor will not conform to the rope to help you move up or down.
Combat roll is easier on rough terrain - it hurts less
Combat roll on a flat surface (salle, asphalt road, etc) is a bit harder. Padding has nothing to do with it - it a a loss of flexibility in your torso.
I am wondering as to the quality of people's hearing. I liked your posts, read them, pic was great, but people make more noise in a leather jacket than in lighter clothes, many shoe types are not as quiet as moccasins or going without shoes, if they are loaded up heavier still, big motorcycle riding boots, more weight, a pack, they make even more noise still. All that leather, all that metal, buckles, the sound of the weight moving around, it is going to cause more noise. Perhaps I have unusual ears, who knows.
It may not be harder to move silently with your armor on... I have a hard time believing that 100%, but sneaking (which I did not say) I think would be.
You have bright shiny plates on your shoulders. You have a larger silhouette. So while you may be able to be just as quiet (though it seems like a gymn shorts, a t-shirt, and soft soled shoes would HAVE to be quieter) you would still be at a disadvantage in being undetected.
I am not arguing that it would be more difficult with armor on or when wearing a backpack to do a lot the skills.
I mentioned up thread that it would be more work that it would be worth to have skill penalties broken down by skill and armor type. It makes for a smoother and faster game if there is simply one number per armor type.
I simply think that they may want to look at the numbers for the next version of Pathfinder (or perhaps as part of a bit of errata on the next printing) and downgrade the penalty for some of the armors.
Actually, the shiny shoulders are easy to camouflage - simply put a tabard on. :)
I am wondering as to the quality of people's hearing. I liked your posts, read them, pic was great, but people make more noise in a leather jacket than in lighter clothes, many shoe types are not as quiet as moccasins or going without shoes, if they are loaded up heavier still, big motorcycle riding boots, more weight, a pack, they make even more noise still. All that leather, all that metal, buckles, the sound of the weight moving around, it is going to cause more noise. Perhaps I have unusual ears, who knows.
Thanks.
I freely acknowledge that you make more noise when you wear more gear and that I will make more noise in my armor than when I am in shorts and barefoot.
However, I don't make much more noise in armor than when I am wearing a leather jacket and wearing steeltoed boots. The armor doesn't make as much noise when all the straps are properly tightened, as there is less movement of the leather than the leather jacket, which moves around, rubs against itself, etc..
I have managed to sneak up on several people while wearing my armor, but others have noticed me right away (not sure if the first group rolled 1s on their perception checks and the second group rolled 20s while I rolled ones on my stealth check :)).
Ah but can you hear it in that helm?
We could ask those around you, problem is, many folks especially urbans have a very low sense of what is going on around them. Lol, too busy on mobile phone didn't notice knight in plate sneak up.
The funny thing about this is whenever I watch the history channel and they put someone in armor or they talk about the armor they always talk about how heavy and restrictive it is.
I have no doubt that fast people are still fast in heavy armor but I doubt they are as fast. I do not doubt someone can climb in heavy aromor I do doubt the can climb as fast and for as long. The other thing I think if funny we keep bringing up weight of gear being more an issue probably so, but the character in no armor has usually less in his pack than the guy in full armor when we talk about game terms. Hence the weight of the pack was dealt with a mechanic of encumbrance.
Who are the people on the history channel? Historians, scientist, and voice actors. None of whom really seem the type to spend a lot of time in that stuff, so yeah, it's going to seem heavy to them. Even if they did spend a lot of time in that stuff, they probably haven't in many years, and are slower/weaker as a result. Yeah, it's going to slow you down, but if you're strong and fast, it's not going to drag you down to the level of any other occupant, which is what the current rules do.
Who are the people on the history channel? Historians, scientist, and voice actors. None of whom really seem the type to spend a lot of time in that stuff, so yeah, it's going to seem heavy to them. Even if they did spend a lot of time in that stuff, they probably haven't in many years, and are slower/weaker as a result. Yeah, it's going to slow you down, but if you're strong and fast, it's not going to drag you down to the level of any other occupant, which is what the current rules do.
No they don't drag you down to the level of "any other occupant". You're still stronger and have a dexterity bonus which others might not. It's just not as high as it is without the armor. Armor training lessens the issues, because the fighter becomes more accustomed to the weight / distribution. The movement reflects the reduced range of motion possible in armor more than the weight (while regular encumbrance *is* about the weight). While it would be more "realistic" to judge every type of armor separately 3.x is not that focused on realism in combat. So you get a general rule for medium / heavy armor. If you want more realism in armor (and weapons or combat in general) you need to pull out Rule 0 and start making changes. Which can be fun.
|
Having worn some of the heaviest armors made by man, both new and old, I've come to the conclusion that the ACPs being as big as they are is just silly, at least if the armor was made for you. The plate armors in particular have ludicrously high ACPs. Maybe I have lots of levels of fighter, the endurance feat, and I've only ever worn masterwork armor, but somehow I don't think so.
I'm not even going to get into why they have max dex modifiers, that's absolutely ludicrous. I can see them having dex penalties based on weight, but if you know how to operate a suit of armor well enough, you can function almost as well as you can without the armor.
Here's a thought that makes ACP look incredibly silly: The heaviest modern armor is worn by bomb-squad units, who use disable device to turn off bombs, disable device is a skill affected by ACP.
Furthermore: do you really think a suit of full plate, made for him, would slow Jackie Chan that much? Think about it.
The bomb squad outfits don't have gloves specifically because they would not impede movement and dexterity.
You are arguing this would not severely impede movement?
And I would love for you to post side by sides of actions in and out of armor for comparison. Swim and climb in armor and without armor and lets see the difference.
And as to Jackie Chan, yes I do. Otherwise he would wear it when doing stunts for safety purposes. He doesn't because it impedes his movement.
If it lasted five minutes, you are almost completely exhausted. Mind you, some were trained better and could last longer, but only measured in minutes, not long at all.
Fifty whole rounds? I would imagine so.
Nobody is arguing that ACP as a concept is unrealistic, just that the extremes of the figures are.
A character with Dexterity 16 and 1 rank in Acrobatics as a class skill has a total Acrobatics bonus of +7. Wearing plate mail armor means that he makes Acrobatics checks at the same bonus as a person with a Dexterity of 10 and no training. That is clearly excessive.
|
|
Who are the people on the history channel? Historians, scientist, and voice actors. None of whom really seem the type to spend a lot of time in that stuff, so yeah, it's going to seem heavy to them. Even if they did spend a lot of time in that stuff, they probably haven't in many years, and are slower/weaker as a result. Yeah, it's going to slow you down, but if you're strong and fast, it's not going to drag you down to the level of any other occupant, which is what the current rules do.The funny thing about this is whenever I watch the history channel and they put someone in armor or they talk about the armor they always talk about how heavy and restrictive it is.
I have no doubt that fast people are still fast in heavy armor but I doubt they are as fast. I do not doubt someone can climb in heavy aromor I do doubt the can climb as fast and for as long. The other thing I think if funny we keep bringing up weight of gear being more an issue probably so, but the character in no armor has usually less in his pack than the guy in full armor when we talk about game terms. Hence the weight of the pack was dealt with a mechanic of encumbrance.
Read about the Battle of Agincourt for just one example.
If armor were not a hindering factor, it wouldn't have decreased in use in modern times when mobility became more important.
Until you or anyone else posts a side by side comparison, I'm going with evidence from historical accounts and the basic logic that wearing something that weighs between 1/4 to 1/2 of your body weight will hinder your mobility, climbing and swimming a fair amount.
|
|
If it lasted five minutes, you are almost completely exhausted. Mind you, some were trained better and could last longer, but only measured in minutes, not long at all.Fifty whole rounds? I would imagine so.
Nobody is arguing that ACP as a concept is unrealistic, just that the extremes of the figures are.
A character with Dexterity 16 and 1 rank in Acrobatics as a class skill has a total Acrobatics bonus of +7. Wearing plate mail armor means that he makes Acrobatics checks at the same bonus as a person with a Dexterity of 10 and no training. That is clearly excessive.
If you are saying that wearing 60 pounds of inflexible armor would make a great climber only average, that sounds completely reasonable to me.
I think if you put Carl Lewis in full plate, he probably runs and jumps as well as I do unarmored.
Armor does NOT impede Perform: Dance checks however.
Bloody Sappers.
For those of you interested in what my armor looks like
Dude, going by your photos that's not banded mail, it's studded leather. That changes the whole equation!
Also, nice outfit :)
For those of you interested in what my armor looks like
Dude, going by your photos that's not banded mail, it's studded leather. That changes the whole equation!
Also, nice outfit :)
I'd say the bands are sandwiched between layers of leather. The studs show.
@Ciretose: I didn't say armor did not impede you -AT ALL- I said, it doesn't impede you as much as the armors do in this game. A +/-5 is the difference between a novice and a master, in this game, and a properly made suit of full plate doesn't cripple you -THAT MUCH-.
I think if you put Carl Lewis in full plate, he probably runs and jumps as well as I do unarmored.
If you consider yourself merely average in this regard, I think you are badly underestimating Mr. Lewis. I've never worn plate armor, and I am far from a great athlete, but wearing six-in-one chain over a padded jacket and I can still take a five-foot standing long jump without breaking a sweat.
That's DC 10. We'll be charitable and say my Dexterity is 8.
That leaves me with a total Acrobatics check of -6. I can not take 10 on an Acrobatics check and make a DC 10 five foot standing long jump, and in fact I can not even make a five foot running long jump consistently.
This is a thing I can do, trivially, in real life as an out-of-shape and relatively mundane person; your argument is that a person in better shape, with better training, who is supposedly a hero in a fantasy universe... is even less capable than I am?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, a thread about D&D and medieval history that I've missed!?
Time to chime in:
I am an avid historical fencer (NOT stage combat or "historical free fighting"). I've worn everything from padded wests to field plate so I think I can give a few hints.
1. Medieval Fieldplate is nothing like most of the Platearmors shown in castles today
The reason for this is simple: most of these armors are not medieval but being made only 200 years ago when the medeveal times and jousting were en vogue. These armors were very very thick for extra protection and were only used on romantic jousting tournaments (which itself were not at all a historically faithful recreation).
2. Armor hinders you quite a bit in combat
Even padded west and chain mail hinders you during combat, regardless how proficient you are. You simply are a bit slower which can not be overstated in an endeavor where speed and control is of upmost importance.
So why did people wear it then?
Because a battle is nothing like a duel. People tend to mix these two things which really have nothing to do with each other.
In a battle protection is paramount because death can come from all sides at any time with no chance to react. But even in a duel a Fieldplate is an obstacle that is very hard to overcome.
3. Armor hinders you quite a bit outside of combat too but...
...just not as much as many people think is does. There are three main factors
- Fieldplate is quite stiff so crouching is hard
- Gauntlets take away a lot of your manual dexterity
- the helmet takes away a good 80% of your vision
So I'd say that armor check penalty in D&D is about right, maybe a bit to high for the heavy armors here and there.
About Fieldplates (and knights) vanishing during late medeval and renessaince times:
This has been discussed quite a lot. It is not that armor was suddenly no longer good, but that battles drifted away from the "a few elite warriors clash amidst many untrained peasants" to "thousands and thousands of trained combatants clash".
A knights equipment was very very expensive and with the dimished role of the elite and the bigger emphasis on trained rank and file it was no longer justifiable to pour most of your funds into just a few knights.
The prime example is the english longbowman.
The thing that makes the longbowman so special is NOT primaly the longbow but instead that the longbowman is so expertly trained over many many years despite being rank and file.
For those of you interested in what my armor looks like
Dude, going by your photos that's not banded mail, it's studded leather. That changes the whole equation!
Also, nice outfit :)
Glad you liked it.
The metal bands are under the leather, with the studs showing the horizontal alignment of the metal bands. Teh full kit, with helm, weights about 60 pounds.
Read about the Battle of Agincourt for just one example.
If armor were not a hindering factor, it wouldn't have decreased in use in modern times when mobility became more important.
Until you or anyone else posts a side by side comparison, I'm going with evidence from historical accounts and the basic logic that wearing something that weighs between 1/4 to 1/2 of your body weight will hinder your mobility, climbing and swimming a fair amount.
I think that the Battle of Agincourt had more to do with strategy, tactics and terrain than with armor.
The English used the terrain to their advantage, along with a few other innovations (stakes to stop calvary charges). The English had armored knights and men-at-arms as their main melee combatants, but they were out-numbered by a lot, however the terrain only allowed the French to send in a small portion of their forces at a time.
Some key extracts:
The field of battle was arguably the most significant factor in deciding the outcome. The recently ploughed land hemmed in by dense woodland favoured the English, both because of its narrowness, and because of the thick mud through which the French knights had to walk.
The English men-at-arms in plate and mail were placed shoulder to shoulder four deep.
Wow, a thread about D&D and medieval history that I've missed!?
....
So I'd say that armor check penalty in D&D is about right, maybe a bit to high for the heavy armors here and there
That seems to be the consensus of those who use armor to day.
Yes, Agincourt was not won just because the English brought some Longbows with them.
It was lost by the french through a mix of bad weather, bad terrain and stupidly bad decisions due to not having a leader.
|
|
Read about the Battle of Agincourt for just one example.
If armor were not a hindering factor, it wouldn't have decreased in use in modern times when mobility became more important.
Until you or anyone else posts a side by side comparison, I'm going with evidence from historical accounts and the basic logic that wearing something that weighs between 1/4 to 1/2 of your body weight will hinder your mobility, climbing and swimming a fair amount.
I think that the Battle of Agincourt had more to do with strategy, tactics and terrain than with armor.
The English used the terrain to their advantage, along with a few other innovations (stakes to stop calvary charges). The English had armored knights and men-at-arms as their main melee combatants, but they were out-numbered by a lot, however the terrain only allowed the French to send in a small portion of their forces at a time.
Some key extracts:
The field of battle was arguably the most significant factor in deciding the outcome. The recently ploughed land hemmed in by dense woodland favoured the English, both because of its narrowness, and because of the thick mud through which the French knights had to walk.
The English men-at-arms in plate and mail were placed shoulder to shoulder four deep.
The French knights in heavy armor were unable to navigate the mud, were tripping over fallen bodies (many of which were unable to get back up even if they weren't dead due to the weight of armor) and were bottlenecked into repelled calvary charges.
And the lightly armored Longbowmen used their mobility to hack them to pieces.
"To protect themselves as much as possible against the arrows they had to lower their visors and bend their helmeted heads to avoid being shot in the face—the eye and air-holes in their helmets were among the weakest points in the armour. This head lowered position restricted both their breathing and their vision. Then they had to walk a few hundred yards through thick mud, a press of comrades and wearing armour weighing 50–60 pounds (20–30 kg). Increasingly they had to walk around or over fallen comrades.[43]
The surviving French men-at-arms reached the front of the English line and actually pushed it back, with the longbowmen on the flanks continuing to shoot at point blank range. When the archers ran out of arrows they dropped their bows and using hatchets, swords and the mallets they had used to drive their stakes in, attacked the now disordered, fatigued and wounded French men-at-arms massed in front of them. The French could not cope with the thousands of lightly armoured longbowmen assailants (who were much less hindered by the mud and weight of their armour) combined with the English men-at-arms. The impact of thousands of arrows, combined with the slog in heavy armour through the mud, the heat and lack of oxygen in plate armour with the visor down, and the crush of their numbers meant the French men-at-arms could "scarcely lift their weapons" when they finally engaged the English line.[44] The exhausted French men-at-arms are described as being knocked to the ground by the English and then unable to get back up. As the mêlée developed, the French second line also joined the attack, but they too were swallowed up, with the narrow terrain meaning the extra numbers could not be used effectively. The French men-at-arms were taken prisoner or killed in their thousands. "
Your posted armor isn't anywhere near battle ready. I can tons of gaps at the arms that no one would go into battle with. Gaps you don't want when the swords and arrows are real.
It is pretty, but not functional for real combat.
Your posted armor isn't anywhere near battle ready. I can tons of gaps at the arms that no one would go into battle with. Gaps you don't want when the swords and arrows are real.
It is pretty, but not functional for real combat.
While I admit that I cam currently missing a chain hauberk that would cover gaps under the arms and at the elbows, I do consider my armor battle ready as is.
The current gaps in the elbows and underarms are extremely hard target to hit during a fight in my experience.
Could you outline your experience in sword fighting, as I am trying to identify your school or style to have a better chance of understanding why you consider my armor something "that no one would go into battle with".
Armor does NOT impede Perform: Dance checks however.And as a dancer I can tell you the moves that he is pulling off are crude to what the ideal is. Plus that armor is not meant to stop weapons. It is designed to absorb and distribute explosive forces away from the body. (No more magic missiles for him)
They'll just shoot him in the hand.
An odd note on the Sneak skill, from a writer's perspective, not necessarily a realist's. (Though I like to think the two aren't mutually exclusive.) While I understand why they did it, I'm not sure I've ever agreed with Paizo's compilation of Hide and Move Silently. I can see where it's more a player's responsibility to represent this, though, and also perhaps a DM's. Sneaking is so much more than being able to move quietly, isn't it? It's being able to move quickly and quietly at the same time, being able to see everywhere at once, enough to anticipate the movements of those you're avoiding, being able to duck around that corner, under that desk, behind that tree, at a moment's notice and without drawing attention to yourself. If you're sneaking through the woods, you have to be aware of every fallen twig, and maybe feel out your footsteps, in a very tactile way. If it's indoors, perhaps a wooden stair, you have to not creak - which is almost exclusively an issue of weight. If there's a narrow cave corridor, you mustn't scrape the sides...can't be too bulky.
Granted that most of these things are covered by circumstance bonuses and penalties, but then...isn't that system precisely the solution to any ACP issues you might have?
Stealth covers a lot more than hiding and moving silently (two things which are mutually exclusive, because one involves not moving, the other involves moving), including making use of terrain, shadows, and whatnot. Now you might sweep all of that under hiding, but then I think you are doing what the people who play 4E have to do: stretch a skill until it covers everything you need it to cover, which isn't how a permissive system like this works.
Also, most armors, unless they are from a video game, do not stick that far out from your body. Moderately good to high-quality armor should make next to no noise if you are being careful.
Sweat pants are quiter than leather pants, a chain on a wallet makes noise. If both of these things are true the. Metal armor or leather armor is more noisy than not wearing armor.
A t shirt is smaller than football pads, a motorcycle jacket is harder to move in than a tank top. If both of those things are true the. It would be harder to hide in plate mail. I wear a motorcycle jacket regularly, super light weight, mostly cloth with a couple of stiff carbon fiber pads. I cannot believe that plate mail, no matter how well made, is less cumbersome than that.
Certainly, it is cumbersome. But can you really, honestly, claim to believe that it is the equivalent of reducing your Dexterity by fourteen points, when the difference between the most agile specimens of 'normal' humanity and the clumsiest humans possible without some degree of actual physical impairment is only thirteen points?
Half-plate has an ACP of -7. That means that for any Dexterity-based skill check, a character with Dexterity 20 in half-plate armor is the equivalent of a character with Dexterity 7.
Real Armor (not modern armor made for show) is not mobile. Its heavy and cubmersome as crap. Often knight's needed cranes and otther apparatus' to get on their horses. A step ladder at the very least.
There are as many myths about how heavy medieval armor was as there are myths about how heavy the swords were. A modern soldier's pack is as heavy or worse, and it isn't specifically designed to be distributed evenly on the body. Check out the 'armor' episode of 'Weapons That Made Britain' if its still out there on youtube somewhere - the guy actually throws himself off of a moving horse in a suit of plate and then gets up. Plate armor was never used until they figured out how to make effective plates without making them too thick to be cumbersome; knights wore chainmail until roughly the 1300s when European metallurgical science figured out how to make much better quality metals without pattern-welding/folding techniques that don't work for plates. (Also why later-era European swords aren't folded or pattern welded; they don't NEED TO BE.)
BUT all this being said, even a little weight will screw someone up if they're trying to perform acrobatics or swim or dance. One famous French Knight used to show off how strong he was by climbing up an angled ladder in his plate, because it was damn tough. I would say some armor checks could be reduced, but there should still be something there.
|
|
Your posted armor isn't anywhere near battle ready. I can tons of gaps at the arms that no one would go into battle with. Gaps you don't want when the swords and arrows are real.
It is pretty, but not functional for real combat.
While I admit that I cam currently missing a chain hauberk that would cover gaps under the arms and at the elbows, I do consider my armor battle ready as is.
The current gaps in the elbows and underarms are extremely hard target to hit during a fight in my experience.
Could you outline your experience in sword fighting, as I am trying to identify your school or style to have a better chance of understanding why you consider my armor something "that no one would go into battle with".
I have none. I feel certain that you have no actual experience with it either, in the sense of "That guy is really swinging a weapon and trying to kill me and I have exposed area in my armor.
The gaps are your elbows and underarms are why you have mobility in the armor.
Your armor appears to be a costume. A very nice, well made costume, but not something I would in any way feel secure wearing into combat with someone wielding an actual weapon and trying to kill me. You have little to no visibility with that helmet, serious and exploitable gaps at all of your joints, and very little in the way of deflection design.
Not to mention the metal itself doesn't appear to be that sturdy.
Which is why it isn't likely banded mail was actually ever used.
Gaps in armor allow mobility. They also make them less useful as armor, since the entire point is a trade of mobility for not being able to be pierced by weapons.
Certainly, it is cumbersome. But can you really, honestly, claim to believe that it is the equivalent of reducing your Dexterity by fourteen points, when the difference between the most agile specimens of 'normal' humanity and the clumsiest humans possible without some degree of actual physical impairment is only thirteen points?
Half-plate has an ACP of -7. That means that for any Dexterity-based skill check, a character with Dexterity 20 in half-plate armor is the equivalent of a character with Dexterity 7.
I think the reason for this is most likely that as you become better smaller things become exponentially more pronounced.
I imagine that most people probably do not notice the kind of keyboard they type on. It doesn't really matter. To a professional computer gamer the difference between a 15$ keyboard and a $250 keyboard is immense due to the fractions of a second it saves them when they are in the middle of a game. While this may not matter to most people there is an exponential difference as people become more skilled.
The same would be true for armor. I have to discount almost everyones opinion on the effects of armor in combat because no one on this forum is competent enough in combat in armor to discern the difference. This is not to malign anyone who has practiced, but given it is not your profession and your life does not depend on it you cannot know.
I know that there is a substantial difference between myself and the average infantry soldier. Its a fact. They practice combat every day. They march, shoot, execute battle drills, and troop movement all the time 8-10 hours a day. The same would have been true for people we are talking about who are practicing sneaking and combat.
So unless you have a full time occupation of being a medieval soldier then you can't truly know how much of an impact that armor has.
This is true for both sides of the argument.
However I do know that boxers get less tired when they use lighter gloves. A couple of ounces makes a big difference. So if a couple ounces on your hands matter, a couple dozen pounds has to matter too.
I think the reason for this is most likely that as you become better smaller things become exponentially more pronounced.
Except that this is not, in any conceivable fashion, reflected in how skill DCs work. Or how anything in the d20 system works. The expensive keyboard matters to the professional gamer because he notices tiny differences in performance-- and those tiny differences matter because reality is much, much more fine-grained than a d20 die roll.
The pro-gamer needs the expensive keyboard because a 10ms lag in registering a keystroke makes the difference between victory and defeat. The ACP for heavy armor isn't a barely-noticeable delay in performance... it negates the entire bonus for a 1st level character with a trained class skill and an ability score of 16.
That's not the difference between a good keyboard and a cheap keyboard. That's the difference between a good keyboard and playing with a broken hand.
The same would be true for armor. I have to discount almost everyones opinion on the effects of armor in combat because no one on this forum is competent enough in combat in armor to discern the difference. This is not to malign anyone who has practiced, but given it is not your profession and your life does not depend on it you cannot know.
It's not my profession or my life. I am not even a talented amateur-- I can only call myself average if I am being exceedingly charitable.
But I am telling you, speaking from experience, that my out-of-shape ass can do things in armor that the rules you are defending say a highly-trained elite professional soldier can not do. I know this from experience because I have done these things, and thus if the rules say that someone who is in every relevant fashion superior to me cannot do these things, the rules are wrong.
I'm not saying that I'm even half as good as a 1st level Fighter trained in Acrobatics. I am saying that for these asinine and unrealistic rules to make a goddamned lick of sense, I-- in all of my sedentary, overweight glory-- would have to be at least an 8th level Fighter.
Since we can assume for the sake of conversation that nobody on this forum is an 8th level Fighter-- which is what you're asserting-- then logically, the rules must be wrong.
I'm playing LARP (I know the weapons are of foam^^) and even is there armors aren't accurate, I could definitly say that even a simple leather armor does change the way you can do things.
I got a new chainshirt a few weeks ago and after putting it on and training with it I have to say, the penalty rules in Pathfinder are far too weak.
I'm not trained with it and far from "best shape", but running (jumping etc.) with a 12 kg chainshirt is definitly much more difficult then with a t-shirt.
I can only encourge everyone to try it out, maybe playing a NPC on a Larp Event (at some the equipment for NPCs are from a fundus) and try to stay "in role" for a weekend (or week).
This will definitly change your point-of-view for your P&P Character (thinks like: equipment weigth, armor, multiple weapons, stealth etc.)
12kg for a chain-shirt is quite heavy. With bolted rings you should not break 8kg. The few patches of viking era chainmail that survived suggest this.
A chain always feels heavier than it is, because it really clings to you due to not having any stability. Plate thats 3 times as heavy actually does not feel much heavier at all.
@Mistwalker
Your armor is ok. "nowhere near battle ready" is a gross overstatement.
However a Halberd would be the bane of this armor. The usual tactic is a lightning fast thrust that you narrowly avoid only to get caught in the fold under the arm by the side spike when the Halberd rakes back. This causes you to be pulled forward and to your side so that you actually present this opening to the opponent who now only needs to thrust again to hit you under the arms. It's actually quite easy.
But if you plan to enhance your protection by using a shield you would be fine - at the cost of reduced offensive by only being able to use a short sword.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have none. I feel certain that you have no actual experience with it either, in the sense of "That guy is really swinging a weapon and trying to kill me and I have exposed area in my armor.
The gaps are your elbows and underarms are why you have mobility in the armor.
Your armor appears to be a costume. A very nice, well made costume, but not something I would in any way feel secure wearing into combat with someone wielding an actual weapon and trying to kill me. You have little to no visibility with that helmet, serious and exploitable gaps at all of your joints, and very little in the way of deflection design.
Not to mention the metal itself doesn't appear to be that sturdy.
Which is why it isn't likely banded mail was actually ever used.
Gaps in armor allow mobility. They also make them less useful as armor, since the entire point is a trade of mobility for not being able to be pierced by weapons.
While I may have not the "that guy is trying to kill me and I have gaps in my armor" experience with swords and armor, I do have a fair bit of experience with "that guy is trying to win this sword fighting bout and I have gaps in my armor". I generally prefer to win my bouts and so do my best to ensure that I use my armor to best effect, and my sword as well.
My armor is not "costume" grade armor, there are plates of spring steel under the leather in my armor, plates that completely surround my torso, which I can assure you are quite sturdy. Winter Tree Crafts Coat of Plates, this link will provide a look at what is under the leather - I added in armored dags (plates under the points at the bottom/waist of the armor).
This armor is based on historical armor Coat of Plates. Please note the links to the Battle of Visby (or Wisby).
I agree that visibility is an issue, but if you look at any of the historical great helms or sallets, there is a visibility problem for all of them - no one wanted to get stabbed in the face with 30 inches of steel.
Have I understood correctly that you have no experience in medieval sword fighting arts and/or wearing medeival armor, that you objections are all based on theory?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Mistwalker
Your armor is ok. "nowhere near battle ready" is a gross overstatement.However a Halberd would be the bane of this armor. The usual tactic is a lightning fast thrust that you narrowly avoid only to get caught in the fold under the arm by the side spike when the Halberd rakes back. This causes you to be pulled forward and to your side so that you actually present this opening to the opponent who now only needs to thrust again to hit you under the arms. It's actually quite easy.
But if you plan to enhance your protection by using a shield you would be fine - at the cost of reduced offensive by only being able to use a short sword.
I do plan on adding in a chain hauberk to the armor to help address any potential gaps in the armor. I am also looking at obtaining a small steel cap and a chain coif to wear under the great helm, to be able to remove the great helm if need be.
Will you be at GenCon this year? If so, we should do a bout or two. I think that the halberd may be less effective that you think (mental note to self, pratice sword versus poleaxe before heading to GenCon).
One of the guiding principles of the style that I practice is that your sword is a defensive tool before it is an offensice tool - defend with it, and only if it is relatively safe to do so, attack with it.
Don't get tripped laddy! Or run into a disengage head/throat thrust. Saw naginata vs katana once, not close.