I mean end of the day the tunic is just clothing right?
No. That said it would give no mechanical benefit. If I understand the rules correctly that is.
Nothing stopping you from doing that. As long as the chain shirt fits under the reinforced tunic, you can do it (for example, I wouldn't allow someone to wear full plate and also half plate or a breastplate. You would only get the benefit of the best armor. You would have the weight of both and the AC penalty or check penalty of both added together.
About the only benefit you might get is if there's an attack that could bypass one but not the other armor or material (say a blade that passes through metal, but not leather or vice versa). In that case you would use the AC bonus of the effective armor. Similar to wearing a breastplate (+6 AC) and having mage armor (+4 AC), you would normally get the +6 from the breastplate, but if attacked by a brilliant energy weapon (ignores non-living matter) or an incorporeal touch attack (ignores armor except force effects) then you would use the +4 from the mage armor.
I believe the armored coat is the item most used to layer armor and should be used as an example in most cases (for stacking actual, material armor, not spells). As long as the items could believably and realistically be layered under each other, that doesn't mean it won't be obvious or noticeable, but that depends on the specific armor/clothing. An armored coat is more likely to be able to conceal a leather jerkin or chain shirt underneath than an armored or reinforced tunic.
Pizza Lord wrote: Nothing stopping you from doing that. As long as the chain shirt fits under the reinforced tunic, you can do it (for example, I wouldn't allow someone to wear full plate and also half plate or a breastplate. You would only get the benefit of the best armor. You would have the weight of both and the AC penalty or check penalty of both added together.
About the only benefit you might get is if there's an attack that could bypass one but not the other armor or material (say a blade that passes through metal, but not leather or vice versa). In that case you would use the AC bonus of the effective armor. Similar to wearing a breastplate (+6 AC) and having mage armor (+4 AC), you would normally get the +6 from the breastplate, but if attacked by a brilliant energy weapon (ignores non-living matter) or an incorporeal touch attack (ignores armor except force effects) then you would use the +4 from the mage armor.
I believe the armored coat is the item most used to layer armor and should be used as an example in most cases (for stacking actual, material armor, not spells). As long as the items could believably and realistically be layered under each other, that doesn't mean it won't be obvious or noticeable, but that depends on the specific armor/clothing. An armored coat is more likely to be able to conceal a leather jerkin or chain shirt underneath than an armored or reinforced tunic.
And I'm assuming it would work the same way if say a breastplate was worn over the tunic correct?
By RAW, there is nothing about wearing 2 armors, some GM might allow it based on the situation.
Logically wearing breastplate and tunic shouldnt have stack effect, because tunic is fully covered by breastplate.
My intepretation for this is that, a Tunic provide bad overall protection (AC 1), but it still able to help you avoid the critical damage (additional +2). While a breastplate is overall good at protection, so it can help you avoid both normal hit and critical hit at same AC bonus
happykj wrote: By RAW, there is nothing about wearing 2 armors, some GM might allow it based on the situation.
Logically wearing breastplate and tunic shouldnt have stack effect, because tunic is fully covered by breastplate.
My intepretation for this is that, a Tunic provide bad overall protection (AC 1), but it still able to help you avoid the critical damage (additional +2). While a breastplate is overall good at protection, so it can help you avoid both normal hit and critical hit at same AC bonus
That would actually be pretty good as armor ngl.
Masalic wrote: And I'm assuming it would work the same way if say a breastplate was worn over the tunic correct? Pretty much. There is no reason it logically shouldn't or anything rule-wise to say otherwise. You are using it as you normally would and the only thing different is that you have a breastplate over it and I don't see any reason that would hinder its properties. As a GM I would rule that the reinforced tunic's +2 AC on critical confirmations would apply but only if it was better than a breastplate's AC. In this case, it wouldn't be (breastplate is 6, reinforced tunic is 1. 1 + 2 is still less than 6). Note that it adds +2 to the tunic's AC, not yours. You wouldn't add it to the AC you were getting from the breastplate (which is what you would be using, since it has the highest AC). Only in a case where the attack were bypassing metal or the breastplate and not the tunic would that come into play (or the tunic had magical bonuses that enhanced its armor bonus to within 1 or more points of the breastplate where the +2 would kick it up and over).
About the only ruling you might get is from the armored coat. It has some qualities that only apply to itself (time to don or remove, what types of armor it works with, ie. not heavy, etc.) but it also says that magical effects and properties only apply from the outermost armor. So if you had a +1 breastplate worn over a +1 reinforced tunic of fire resistance you would use the breastplate's AC, since it's higher (You'd get to use the tunic's if it was higher from magical bonuses, since I don't believe that's what they meant by effects), but you wouldn't get the tunic's fire resistance. The tunic's resistance to critical hits is inherent in its construction and not magical.
Ultimately, it can be done, but the times when it is useful are very limited. You would have to be wearing armor within 1 point of the reinforced tunic for its bonus to be better or that armor would have to be bypassed by an attack that doesn't pass the reinforced tunic. You would have to take the penalties of both (or the worst), so you're likely stacking the armor check penalties and probably arcane failure, you're taking the movement penalty if one is medium or heavy. You're using the lowest max dex between them and you're carrying the weight and encumbrance of both. You don't get the magical properties of the armor worn underneath (I would rule this doesn't apply to the enhancement that affects the AC if that makes it higher than the outer armor).
I think historically, most light armor worn under other armor was for either padding or so when moving around camp or sleeping if they were attacked they weren't completely defenseless (even 1 minute to don means the fight is usually over in Pathfinder). The chances this would actually work in a game situation are very few and would almost require the GM to purposefully do it.
Pizza Lord wrote: Masalic wrote: And I'm assuming it would work the same way if say a breastplate was worn over the tunic correct? Pretty much. There is no reason it logically shouldn't or anything rule-wise to say otherwise. You are using it as you normally would and the only thing different is that you have a breastplate over it and I don't see any reason that would hinder its properties. As a GM I would rule that the reinforced tunic's +2 AC on critical confirmations would apply but only if it was better than a breastplate's AC. In this case, it wouldn't be (breastplate is 6, reinforced tunic is 1. 1 + 2 is still less than 6). Note that it adds +2 to the tunic's AC, not yours. You wouldn't add it to the AC you were getting from the breastplate (which is what you would be using, since it has the highest AC). Only in a case where the attack were bypassing metal or the breastplate and not the tunic would that come into play (or the tunic had magical bonuses that enhanced its armor bonus to within 1 or more points of the breastplate where the +2 would kick it up and over).
About the only ruling you might get is from the armored coat. It has some qualities that only apply to itself (time to don or remove, what types of armor it works with, ie. not heavy, etc.) but it also says that magical effects and properties only apply from the outermost armor. So if you had a +1 breastplate worn over a +1 reinforced tunic of fire resistance you would use the breastplate's AC, since it's higher (You'd get to use the tunic's if it was higher from magical bonuses, since I don't believe that's what they meant by effects), but you wouldn't get the tunic's fire resistance. The tunic's resistance to critical hits is inherent in its construction and not magical.
Ultimately, it can be done, but the times when it is useful are very limited. You would have to be wearing armor within 1 point of the reinforced tunic for its bonus to be better or that... That's fine. Truth be told I'm looking more for aesthetics anyway.
I'm looking into whatever kind of armors that could have been worn by someone who is associated with Roman or Norse culture on someway. I would use leather but sadly I can't look at leather armor anymore know that no leather armor existed that wasn't lamellar.
And I know this is gonna be a hot take, but lamellar just doesn't look right to me the segmented nature of the armor throws it all off imo.
Most real-world armor was layered, and the overall effect of the layers is what we get in the game. You don't wear plate armor without some form of padding under it.
As an example, half-plate says: "Half-plate armor combines elements of full plate and chainmail", and those don't mention wearing a gamberson under them, but it is practically mandatory to wear one. Otherwise, blunt force damage from maces or war hammers would be transmitted to the body with full force.
Leather armor existed, it was made of boiled leather. And the best approximation of the Roman lorica segmentata is the banded mail.
Diego Rossi is right about the padding under armor. Without the padding the armor is a lot less effective. The padding distributes the force of the blow over a large area thereby preventing the wearer of the armor from being hurt.
Diego Rossi wrote: Most real-world armor was layered, and the overall effect of the layers is what we get in the game. You don't wear plate armor without some form of padding under it.
As an example, half-plate says: "Half-plate armor combines elements of full plate and chainmail", and those don't mention wearing a gamberson under them, but it is practically mandatory to wear one. Otherwise, blunt force damage from maces or war hammers would be transmitted to the body with full force.
Leather armor existed; it was made of boiled leather. And the best approximation of the Roman lorica segmentata is the banded mail.
Unfortunately, i can't find any evidence of leather armor that wasn't lamellar in nature. I want to believe solid one-piece leather armor existed but i can't find anything that isn't immediately disputed.
Also, Metal plates, Chainmail AND gambeson? Wouldn't your reaction time slow to a crawl?
As for the padding, idk about you guys but me personally, I'd rather deal with some broken ribs over a punctured lung.
RAW you have a single Armor slot, so cannot wear a chain shirt and a reinforced tunic as both are considered armor.
TxSam88 wrote: RAW you have a single Armor slot, so cannot wear a chain shirt and a reinforced tunic as both are considered armor. So, I can wear a chain shirt under a regular tunic but not a reinforced one?
I hope you have a sound explanation aside from "I'm the DM, you can't because I said so."
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
“Slots” only apply to magic items. You could easily wear 20 rings with 2 on each finger. But you’d only get the benefit of two magic rings.
If wearing 2 armors, you only get the magical benefits of one.
Melkiador wrote: “Slots” only apply to magic items. You could easily wear 20 rings with 2 on each finger. But you’d only get the benefit of two magic rings.
If wearing 2 armors, you only get the magical benefits of one.
That I can work with.
Without the padding you will be getting a punctured lung. Maybe not from the sword, but your broken rib will still puncture your lung quite well. A piercing or edged weapon does its damage by concentrating the kinetic energy in a small location. The metal part of the armor if it has no padding does not significantly spread the kinetic force so the hit can still break bones. The padding distributes the kinetic force over a much wider area, so you hardly even feel the blow.
Padding weighs a lot less than the metal part of the armor. By using padding, you don’t need as much metal to achieve the same protection. The metal was usually only 1/10th of an inch or less in thickness. So, using a gambeson actually makes the armor more maneuverable and less encumbering.
I used to hang around with the SCA and knew someone who used very light padding in his helmet at first. One hit to the head knocked him out and gave him a concussion. The blow was from a rattan weapon and not even at full speed. The padding was not up to the SCA standards, and he was told to replace it with something that was. After he replaced the padding in the helmet with better padding, they tested it by hitting him with the same weapon. With the new padding he felt the blow but was not otherwise hurt. The metal of the helmet was a modern allow that was much stronger than the metal used in medieval times. Neither blow harmed the helmet in any way, but without the proper padding the kinetic force of the blow was not reduced much.
Masalic wrote: Unfortunately, i can't find any evidence of leather armor that wasn't lamellar in nature. I want to believe solid one-piece leather armor existed but i can't find anything that isn't immediately disputed.
Besides the artists' depictions (that aren't accurate at all), whoever said that leather armor is a solid one-piece of leather?
The description in the CRB is:
"Leather armor is made up of multiple overlapping pieces of leather, boiled to increase their natural toughness and then deliberately stitched together".
The main problem is that most leather armors have rotten away, so there is little historical proof. Same problem for chain shirts, BTW. They rusted to nothing. AFAIK we have some rings but nothing complete.
Diego Rossi wrote: Masalic wrote: Unfortunately, i can't find any evidence of leather armor that wasn't lamellar in nature. I want to believe solid one-piece leather armor existed but i can't find anything that isn't immediately disputed.
Besides the artists' depictions (that aren't accurate at all), whoever said that leather armor is a solid one-piece of leather?
The description in the CRB is:
"Leather armor is made up of multiple overlapping pieces of leather, boiled to increase their natural toughness and then deliberately stitched together".
The main problem is that most leather armors have rotten away, so there is little historical proof. Same problem for chain shirts, BTW. They rusted to nothing. AFAIK we have some rings but nothing complete. Chain shirts imo just come down to common sense. If we know chainmail exists there's no reason to think someone didn't think to make a smaller more compact version of a chainmail
Masalic wrote: Chain shirts imo just come down to common sense. If we know chainmail exists there's no reason to think someone didn't think to make a smaller more compact version of a chainmail We can use the same argument for leather armor.
We know that we had cuir boli lamellar armor, we know we had hide armor, and we know that a heavy leather jacket (like the ones used by bikers) can protect fairly well from claws and bites. So it is common sense that someone developed a low-cost leather armor version for the peasant infantryman.
After all, the Babylonians used cloth armor, and that didn't protect that much.
During the XVI and XVII centuries, a lot of armies used leather uniforms. They were good enough against spent bullets.
Diego Rossi wrote: Masalic wrote: Chain shirts imo just come down to common sense. If we know chainmail exists there's no reason to think someone didn't think to make a smaller more compact version of a chainmail We can use the same argument for leather armor.
We know that we had cuir boli lamellar armor, we know we had hide armor, and we know that a heavy leather jacket (like the ones used by bikers) can protect fairly well from claws and bites. So it is common sense that someone developed a low-cost leather armor version for the peasant infantryman.
After all, the Babylonians used cloth armor, and that didn't protect that much.
During the XVI and XVII centuries, a lot of armies used leather uniforms. They were good enough against spent bullets. Well if a chain shirt isn't just shortened chainmail then what would it be?
Melkiador wrote: “Slots” only apply to magic items. You could easily wear 20 rings with 2 on each finger. But you’d only get the benefit of two magic rings.
If wearing 2 armors, you only get the magical benefits of one.
I suppose you could wear more than 1 suit of non-magical armor, the same way you can wear more than one pair of non-magical boots.
TxSam88 wrote: Melkiador wrote: “Slots” only apply to magic items. You could easily wear 20 rings with 2 on each finger. But you’d only get the benefit of two magic rings.
If wearing 2 armors, you only get the magical benefits of one.
I suppose you could wear more than 1 suit of non-magical armor, the same way you can wear more than one pair of non-magical boots. Again end of the day it's just a modified tunic so unless you can come up with a real reason why it would be any different from putting it under a regular tunic the argument is moot
Most armor is composed of multiple pieces. The ones that were a single piece were usually either cheap low grade armor, or the person was only wearing part of the armor. The chain shirt is an example of the second instance.
For more information try here
Diego Rossi wrote:
During the XVI and XVII centuries, a lot of armies used leather uniforms. They were good enough against spent bullets.
What do you mean by spent bullets?
Recent threads in General Discussion
|
