Simple vs. Simple Weapons

> In-game you hit and do damage with the fist, at least in DnD.
> Damage reduction for armor is an interesting concept...

I personally think that DR for armour should be equal to the armour's bonus to AC
(disregarding any magical bonuses but including the masterwork bonus if any). Thus
Leather gives a DR of 2 against slashing and piercing weapons but no DR against
bludgeoning weapons. Half plate gives a DR of 7 against all weapons except piercing.
Full plate gives a DR of 8 against all weapons.

The rationale? Combat bonuses for high STR apply to both the chance to hit and the
amount of damage dealt by a hit. In my view it follows that armour bonuses should
apply to lessen both the chances of being hit *and* any damage taken.

A knight in full armour was virtually invulnerable on the battlefield, unless
surrounded, unhorsed and butchered, or struck with weapons specifically designed to
defeat that armour (e.g. lances, longbows, cross bows).

Some knights were defeated because they were unfortunate enough to suffer
sufficient concussion from particularly strong strikes to fell them and the
opponent could close in enough to use a stiletto dagger or similar weapon with a
narrow triangular blade designed to penetrate the armour.

Armour DR should always be negated for strikes from weapons specifically designed
to defeat the armour (e.g. piercing weapons vs chain mail, bludgeoning weapons vs
chain and leather).

Natural attacks should not defeat DR from armour.

If we really wanted to be realistic, of course, all swords other than masterwork
would become blunt after repeated combat.

Cheers
JOanna

JOanna Rowland-Stuart wrote:

> I personally think that DR for armour should be equal to the armour's
> bonus to AC [...]

> The rationale? Combat bonuses for high STR apply to both the chance to
> hit and the amount of damage dealt by a hit. In my view it follows that
> armour bonuses should apply to lessen both the chances of being hit
> *and* any damage taken.

But the hit chance is relative to a large variable, such that the
best armour modifies your chance of being /hit for full damage/ by only
30% compared to the cheap stuff.

A similar amount of DR, against say the typical average damage at low
level is 30% of about 7 points, or DR 2. Maybe DR 1 for Leather, 2 for
Mail, 3 for Plate. Then at high level it's totally different, so it needs
to scale with level, up toward 12-15 points, maybe 4/8/12. And that's
without /any/ AC bonus.

Only, real people aim for the weak points when they can't punch the
chestplate, using some sort of hit margin to reduce DR mechanic. And
there the whole exercise falls over in a pile of it's own complexities.


> A knight in full armour was virtually invulnerable on the battlefield,

The hell they were. Barely armoured english longbowmen out meleed
them at Agincourt with little better than hatchets and no shield. Knights
in full armour needed space, fresh legs, and firm ground to gain their
advantage, and those things were far from common on the medieval
battlefield.

Now, against /archery/, that armour makes you pretty a tough nut to
crack (though rather like modern bullet proof vests, the hits still hurt
like crazy). AC with range penalties gets the job done there too though,
other than against our dear heroes, as is right and proper.


> Some knights were defeated because

They were fat french royalty, too stupid to make use of archers to
soften the enemy front, who couldn't stand on their own two feet after
marching through thick mud in battle dress. 8]

Oh for a simple set of endurance rules. Armour isn't difficult to get
about in, it's just heavy and requires more work. Ditto big ass weapons
and shields.

> Armour DR should always be negated for strikes from weapons specifically
> designed to defeat the armour (e.g. piercing weapons vs chain mail,
> bludgeoning weapons vs chain and leather).

That doesn't work /nearly/ as well as most people imagine. Weapons
were designed to defeat prevalent armours as well as could be managed
with current technology, as they still are.


But yes, AC also has quite real problems. Such is life.

--
tussock

The different ways one can approach D&D is what makes it D&D.

Thanks tussock

I've actually seen people fighting in full armour, with longswords, (and no, this
wasn't re-enactment, some friends of mine actually do *competitive* longsword and
broadsword combat in plate and chain, with or without shields). I was amazed how
long they could actually go at it without falling over in exhaustion, although they
often called for a breather by consent when both combatants got weary (about every
five or ten minutes). There were some rules (e.g. strikes between shoulder and hip
only), to avoid serious injury or death, but broken bones were commonplace, and
*everyone* was covered in bruises at the end of the afternoon.

I'd always thought, from the films, that armour was clumsy, massively heavy, needed
a crane to get one to one's feet or on one's mount, and that one could fight for
maybe 2 minutes before becoming so exhausted that one became easy meat.

My friends changed all that!

No, I can't fight with a sword, but I know more or less how to hold it and swing it
without looking a complete klutz That helped LOTS when it came to LARP

Cheers
JOanna

In article ,
tussock wrote:

> JOanna Rowland-Stuart wrote:

<snip>

> Now, against /archery/, that armour makes you pretty a tough nut to
> crack (though rather like modern bullet proof vests, the hits still hurt
> like crazy). AC with range penalties gets the job done there too though,
> other than against our dear heroes, as is right and proper.

Which is why, were I an archer on a medieval battlefield, I'd shoot at
the mounts rather than the riders. They're bigger targets, more lightly
armored, and an armored knight afoot can be left for my own armored (and
still mounted) knights to deal with while I run away - I mean, withdraw
to a safe distance.

> Oh for a simple set of endurance rules. Armour isn't difficult to get
> about in, it's just heavy and requires more work. Ditto big ass weapons
> and shields.

Actually, according to the Scadian player in my own group who gets some
of his kicks whacking at other Scadians while wearing his full stainless
steel plate armor, properly fitted and articulated plate armor isn't all
that much more difficult to fight in - the plate itself can take some of
its own weight, for one thing, and for another the entire weight of the
suit does not fall on the shoulders (unlike with chain, which apparently
*is* heavy and difficult to work with and *all* its weight is borne by
the shoulders). Since he's speaking from personal experience, I'm
inclined to believe him (which doesn't mean I'll let him twist game
mechanics simply because it doesn't work that way in real life!).

> > Armour DR should always be negated for strikes from weapons specifically
> > designed to defeat the armour (e.g. piercing weapons vs chain mail,
> > bludgeoning weapons vs chain and leather).

Bludgeoning weapons also seem to have worked well against plate,
particularly when one struck at one's opponent's head. And, of course,
if one could dent the armor enough, it wouldn't articulate properly.

> That doesn't work /nearly/ as well as most people imagine. Weapons
> were designed to defeat prevalent armours as well as could be managed
> with current technology, as they still are.

Hence, the poniard, which was designed to get through the joints (weak
spots) of several different kinds of armor.

> But yes, AC also has quite real problems. Such is life.

Baird

--
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice
there is. -Yogi Berra

Baird Stafford wrote:
> tussock wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Now, against /archery/, that armour makes you pretty a tough nut to
>> crack (though rather like modern bullet proof vests, the hits still
>> hurt like crazy). AC with range penalties gets the job done there too
>> though, other than against our dear heroes, as is right and proper.
>
> Which is why, were I an archer on a medieval battlefield, I'd shoot at
> the mounts rather than the riders. They're bigger targets, more lightly
> armored, and an armored knight afoot can be left for my own armored (and
> still mounted) knights to deal with while I run away

Quite a few cav charges made it all the way to the archer's stakes or
infantry's hedge, thought better of it, turned around, and made it all
the way back out of range without devastating losses, even with the
natural arc of fire mostly striking the horses. The idea of the charge
was to catch them in open ground, with broken formations, ...

> - I mean, withdraw to a safe distance.

like when they try that. Once away from a defended position the
cavalry (or whatever was left of it) would, quite literally, cut them to
pieces. Archers seem to have handled themselves well in the crush once
allied heavy troops had soaked up the the charge, but never did anything
but die in the open.
Of course, that's more to do with the cav than the archers. Wait,
where was I? Never mind.

>> Oh for a simple set of endurance rules. Armour isn't difficult to
>> get about in, it's just heavy and requires more work. Ditto big ass
>> weapons and shields.
>
> Actually, according to the Scadian player in my own group who gets some
> of his kicks whacking at other Scadians while wearing his full stainless
> steel plate armor, properly fitted and articulated plate armor isn't all
> that much more difficult to fight in - the plate itself can take some of
> its own weight, for one thing, and for another the entire weight of the
> suit does not fall on the shoulders (unlike with chain, which apparently
> *is* heavy and difficult to work with and *all* its weight is borne by
> the shoulders).

There's nothing to prevent mail being supported on a leather "frame"
just like plate, at the very least it should have a belt to pin a good
portion of the weight onto the hips, and be reasonably tight over the
padding to prevent sudden weight shifts. Still more tiring than plate
from everything I've read, but a great deal depends on how well it's
fitted.
Really, three belts with the slightest stiffness and you've got a
modern backpack configuration.

> Since he's speaking from personal experience, I'm inclined to believe
> him (which doesn't mean I'll let him twist game mechanics simply
> because it doesn't work that way in real life!).

Heh. The thing there about medieval warfare is they were fighting for
hours on end. Yes, each little flurry of activity is fine (any initial
slowness or penalties for plate should be quite minor, slower /running/
and such), but after covering the last 200 yards through mud under fire,
a quick charge, and hours of crush and grind taking wounds, running about
to keep some sort of formation, dragging valuable captives to camp and
getting back for more, with no food or drink in the heat of the day;
that's going to make that 50 lb of padded steel with a close-faced helm
feel like it weighs a ton.
Real medieval folk mostly weren't all that fit. Far better than any
modern couch potato of course, but nowhere near what modern soldiers can
achieve through strict programs of diet and excercise.

D&D players, meanwhile, like to think they can wear it all day, every
day, in damp, cramped dungeons, while getting hammered on by ogres. Real
plate armour /might/ take a day of that, with some running repairs, but
the wearer would be near-dead from exhaustion alone (many probably did
die of heat exhaustion, occupational hazard for the heavies).

--
tussock

The different ways one can approach D&D is what makes it D&D.

tussock wrote:

> D&D players, meanwhile, like to think they can wear it all day, every
> day, in damp, cramped dungeons, while getting hammered on by ogres.

As long as we're dealing with ogres, we're also dealing with magical healing
to reduce or eliminate said exhaustion. We're also talking about mythical
creatures that can take more of a beating than a horse, so I'm not sure how
much realism one can expect

JOanna Rowland-Stuart wrote:

> Thanks tussock
>
> I've actually seen people fighting in full armour, with longswords, (and
> no, this wasn't re-enactment, some friends of mine actually do
> *competitive* longsword and broadsword combat in plate and chain, with
> or without shields). I was amazed how long they could actually go at it
> without falling over in exhaustion, although they often called for a
> breather by consent when both combatants got weary (about every five or
> ten minutes). There were some rules (e.g. strikes between shoulder and
> hip only), to avoid serious injury or death, but broken bones were
> commonplace, and *everyone* was covered in bruises at the end of the
> afternoon.

Just thinking, if your swordfighting works anything like similar
rules for unarmed (with which I'm reasonably familiar) it could be
artificially relaxing the fights more than you might imagine. I've had
full contact sparring torso-only that's left wonderful looking bruises,
far more than when we would allow head and leg shots, as the fights drag
out much longer and we'd end up in a bit of a pace that's just not all
that quick or energetic. More like an exercise routine than a real fight.

<shrug> Hard to judge without experiencing it, of course. The
medieval fighting manuals I've read assumed things would be settled one
way or the other very quickly, lots of takedowns, neckings and face
stabbing, close and switch to dagger, ....

> No, I can't fight with a sword, but I know more or less how to hold it
> and swing it without looking a complete klutz That helped LOTS when
> it came to LARP

I understand the principles, but all the swords anyone has around
here are clumsy wall hangings, far too heavy for me at least, and I'm far
too old and sensible to take up sabre.

--
tussock

The different ways one can approach D&D is what makes it D&D.

tussock wrote:

> JOanna Rowland-Stuart wrote:
>
>
>>Thanks tussock
>>
>>I've actually seen people fighting in full armour, with longswords, (and
>>no, this wasn't re-enactment, some friends of mine actually do
>>*competitive* longsword and broadsword combat in plate and chain, with
>>or without shields). I was amazed how long they could actually go at it
>>without falling over in exhaustion, although they often called for a
>>breather by consent when both combatants got weary (about every five or
>>ten minutes). There were some rules (e.g. strikes between shoulder and
>>hip only), to avoid serious injury or death, but broken bones were
>>commonplace, and *everyone* was covered in bruises at the end of the
>>afternoon.
>
>
> Just thinking, if your swordfighting works anything like similar
> rules for unarmed (with which I'm reasonably familiar) it could be
> artificially relaxing the fights more than you might imagine. I've had
> full contact sparring torso-only that's left wonderful looking bruises,
> far more than when we would allow head and leg shots, as the fights drag
> out much longer and we'd end up in a bit of a pace that's just not all
> that quick or energetic. More like an exercise routine than a real fight.
>
> <shrug> Hard to judge without experiencing it, of course. The
> medieval fighting manuals I've read assumed things would be settled one
> way or the other very quickly, lots of takedowns, neckings and face
> stabbing, close and switch to dagger, ....
>
>
>>No, I can't fight with a sword, but I know more or less how to hold it
>>and swing it without looking a complete klutz That helped LOTS when
>>it came to LARP
>
>
> I understand the principles, but all the swords anyone has around
> here are clumsy wall hangings, far too heavy for me at least, and I'm far
> too old and sensible to take up sabre.
>

Some data from Tom Maringer, possibly the greatest living swordsmith in
America. He states that no two-handed sword ever weighed more than six
pounds. I take his word on this.

--
Tetsubo
Deviant Art: http://ironstaff.deviantart.com/
Daily Booth: http://dailybooth.com/Tetsubo
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/tetsubo57