Plate armor ineffective?!?

[vivsavage]

I am new to Fantasy Hero and have a couple of questions relating to armor:

 

1) What is the rationale behind making plate armor only half-effective against bashing attacks? I have read copious amounts of history on medieval armor, and have never read anything that would indicate that plate is less effective against bashing weapons (when compared to other types of armor). Is this just an attempt at game balance? It seems highly unrealistic to me.

2) Is chainmail assumed to have quilt padding underneath?

3) Is scale armor included in the penalties against piercing weapons?

[Guest Keneton]

I am not sure where you are getting this about plate armor. There are options on making plate less effective, but the default value of plate (8 DEF) works the same against all non AP or Penetrating attacks. I will be glad to assist if you would like and good luck with HERO. We are very friendly here an love to support new players.

 

 

[Eosin]

What Kenton said....Armor generally has the same value against attacks but some GMs might house rule certian rDEF being better than others.

 

Generally speaking, blunt trauma (hammer) or spiked weapons (pick) is harder across the board for armor.

[Outsider]

And yes, all of the heavier armor types include appropriate undersuits (no additional DEF provided, sorry)

[vivsavage]

Originally posted by Keneton

I am not sure where you are getting this about plate armor. There are options on making plate less effective, but the default value of plate (8 DEF) works the same against all non AP or Penetrating attacks. I will be glad to assist if you would like and good luck with HERO. We are very friendly here an love to support new players.

 

 

Glad to hear that! The info regarding plate armor being less effective against bashing weapons is on page 178 of FH: "leather and plate armors only provide half DEF against Bashing weapons." While I agree that bashing weapons are more effective against armor in general than slashing weapons, I do not see why plate should suffer this penalty while scale , mail (etc) should not. I have never read anything in any history book that would indicate this, although I have read in many places that mail is quite poor against bashing weapons (although not in FH, oddly enough). If anything, plate would be the superior armor against this type of attack.

[Eosin]

This is an optional rule for DMs who want to break things up into Slashing/Piercing/Blunt type of damage. It is not considered part of the standard rules. Start reading from page 177...it becomes more obvious than just reading the bullet points.

 

I do agree that it would seem that mail would suck against blunt.

[GrimJesta]

Oh man, life in the SCA would be deadly if plate didnt work/was half effective against blunt weapons. All those big guys swinging rattan swords at you...

 

*gulp*

 

-=Grim=-

[dugfromthearth]

here is the historic basis:

 

armor consists of facing and padding (which might be the same part of the armor but they are two different effects).

 

Facing is what stops penetration. It is what stops blades from cutting flesh, arrowheads from digging into flesh, etc.

 

Padding is what absorbs the impact of the blow. An axe blow that doesn't cut through the armor would still smack you quite hard and could bruise you, break bones, stun you, etc.

 

As the medieval era progressed weapons got sharper (as steel became higher quality) and armor got heavier to counter them.

 

Now plate armor has a big advantage over flexible armor in that the blow is spread out over a bigger area of padding. But that advantage is not as big as plate's advantage vs pointed weapons and edged weapons. Basically the padding advantage of plate is not as great as the facing advantage of plate.

 

Plate also has one huge disadvantage compared to flexible armor - once dented plate stays dented. So once a blow overcame the rigidity of the plate, it would buckle. People could suffocate because the plate pressed against their chest or stomach and prevented them from breathing.

 

Now realistically plate should not be halved against crushing attacks. Particularly because that makes them vulnerable to weak crushing attacks - which plate was not. So it does not give a realistic effect.

[Photon1966]

Armour Optional Rules

 

I have just started using 5th, though I have played Hero and Champions for many years. I am trying out the optional rules and they make for a more deadly game so far. I had three warriors shoot crossbows at the party as a surprise attack. The main fighter got hit twice, and though I just had them doing 1d6 RKA the one that hit his head was bad! I rolled 6, his chain def was only 3, then the head gets x2 BOD so he took 6, now his own Body is 14 so he wasn't impaired or nothing but it really shocked the heck out them. They then proceeded to melee combat where the weapons of the foes were simple short swords and his armour blocked those attacks well as they too were only 1d6 HKA. I am going to try the other effects in different situations but from what I have seen so far I like the feel of the modifications. Now I was thinking though that I may make some of them special skills costing 3 points as the rules say a STR or DEX roll may be required. I am still trying this out but so far it seems neat, deadly but neat. I also generally feel that I will only apply these rules to weapons, and not to natural attacks or natural armour. Suits of armour yes but not a creatures toughen hide or spells.

For spells I use the limitations (-1/2) and (-1) applied to defenses to only apply to one or two of the three types.

I'll try and let you know more as we use it.

[Guest Keneton]

The bashing, slashing, piercing rules were incuded to allow some variety in damage types and ARE NOT part of the default rules set. Hero likes to provide many options for many styles of play.

 

For example some GM's may not want to allow armor to prevent falling damage or from spells like magic missile. These rae options. By core rule set armor works the same vs. any killing attacks except as I noted in my first post.

 

Good luck and welcome to the community.

[vivsavage]

Originally posted by Keneton

The bashing, slashing, piercing rules were incuded to allow some variety in damage types and ARE NOT part of the default rules set. Hero likes to provide many options for many styles of play.

I can appreciate that, however the optional rules aren't realistic with regard to plate armor, IMO. I was just wondering what the rationale was behind limiting plate's effectiveness versus bashing weapons, even if it is optional. In any RPG I play, I always use these type of rules (mail being less effective versus puncturing, etc), but have never encountered anything that would suggest plate is handicapped against bashing wepoans when mail (etc) are not.

[Killer Shrike]

Those are just suggested alternate rules, as others have pointed out.

 

For my own purposes I use the following house rules as part of a farily complex alternate weapon and armor system (http://www.killershrike.com/FantasyHERO/HighFantasyHERO/armamentsNotes.shtml):

 

Common Weapon Types:

 

Bashing +1 STUN Multiple or +3 STUN; +1 damage per die vs Plate & Scale Armors (up to the total DEF of the armor); -1 OCV to Hit

 

Crushing +2 STUN Multiple or +6 STUN; +2 damage per die vs Plate & Scale Armors (up to the total DEF of the armor); -2 OCV to Hit

 

Slashing +2 DC vs Opponents with no Resistant Defense or wearing Leather Armors; -1pip of damage per die vs Plate Armors

 

Slicing +3 DC vs Opponents with no Resistant Defense or wearing Leather Armors; -2 damage per die vs Plate Armors

 

Piercing +1 OCV to hit; +1 damage per die vs Chain Armors (up to the total DEF of the armor); -1 OCV to Block with

 

Puncturing +2 OCV to hit; +2 damage per die vs Chain Armors (up to the total DEF of the armor); -2 OCV to Block with

 

Common Armor Types:

 

Cloth Double DEF vs Falling Damage, Destroyed by Fire, Insulated

Leather Double DEF vs Fire and Explosions

Scale Reduce DCV Penalty by -1

Chain Reduce DEX Penalty by -1

Plate Rigid (protects vs some forms of Nerve Strike)

 

[farik]

Originally posted by vivsavage

I can appreciate that, however the optional rules aren't realistic with regard to plate armor, IMO. I was just wondering what the rationale was behind limiting plate's effectiveness versus bashing weapons, even if it is optional. In any RPG I play, I always use these type of rules (mail being less effective versus puncturing, etc), but have never encountered anything that would suggest plate is handicapped against bashing wepoans when mail (etc) are not.

 

I don't think these were intended to be a "realistic" option so much as a versatility option. It's the type of option that encourage people to use Normal damage weapons instead of Killing damage weapons. Now I suppose since bashing weapons are Normal damage instead of Killing damage more natural defense applies. If you really want an "explanation" for the plate's effectiveness against bashing I'd throw out

 

"The concussive force of the blow reverbrates through your plate causing more disorientation (read increased amount of stun).

[Photon1966]

Armour changes

 

For my group who have just started playing hero after several years away they haven't had a real problem with the optional rules. I informed them of them, as well as saying I'd like to try them out but if I find them unbalancing or creating situations that don't fit what I want to run then "Out the door they go!" But I personnel like the idea. They seemed fine with the plate thing ringing loudly, that the piercing attacks slipped through the links. So as said before these are optional for some players and GMs who like them.

Try them out, or make them skills as I am thinking they may be. Cost 3 pts, dex or Str as seems appropriate, then when shoot that arrow make skill roll and if hit and make roll then AP vs some stuff, or Bash that guy in plate with just the right blow. Something akin to a Martial Arts Maneuver. Just some thoughts

[Monolith]

Originally posted by vivsavage

I can appreciate that, however the optional rules aren't realistic with regard to plate armor, IMO. I was just wondering what the rationale was behind limiting plate's effectiveness versus bashing weapons, even if it is optional.

I believe some of the rationale might be the fact that a bashing weapon would crush the plate into the person's body. Ringed-type mails would flow around the bashing weapon whereas the plate would stay concaved. I'm not saying this is the reason for the optional rule, but I do not that maces and the like were considered better weapons to use against a fully-armored knight than a sword. The mace could bash into and through the plate where the sword would slide off.

[Lupus]

Question: why isn't chain more vulnerable to bashing weapons? I understand it won't deform to the same extent... but surely the flexible nature will mean that more of the force will be transferred to the target?

 

Plate armour has the advantage that it's really HEAVY. That weight, along with the 'spreading out the force', absorbs a lot of the impact. It'd take a /strong/ blunt attack to get through and injure a plate-armoured knight, whereas I could see a similar-strength attack pulverising the chain-armoured dude.

 

I just don't see these rules as being particularly realistic. But then, one of my pet peeves is rules designed to increase realism... but instead diverge from reality. One of the reasons I can't play GURPS.

[Guest Keneton]

One thing to say is that historians opinions vary widely on the effectiveness and characteristics of both weapons and armor. I do not use the alternate rules discussed, because Hero is crunchy enough without it. In this case obstain from what you do not like.

 

It boils down to what is most playable and fun for your FANTASY game. One thing Steve tries to do is give options. Sometimes I agree with them, sometimes I don't, but I am glad that they are there!

 

[farik]

I've been hit by blunt weapons in both plate and chain. If they are both well made there is no appreciable difference both allow bruising and both can result in your wind being knocked out. Trying to base something like this on realism is ultimately a waste of time since the very concept of Body and Stun are unrealistic (search the internet for info on how the human body deals with damage and you'll see what I mean). Stun and Body allow for gameplay; what rules you decide to use should be based on what kind of "game" you want to have.

[Bookwyrm]

farik, what type of blunt weapons did they hit you with while wearing plate or chain? Did anyone hit you with a sledge hammer or are we just talking about rattan swords?

[farik]

Don't tell the Earl marshall but we tried a 10 pound mace, an iron quarter staff (a modified concrete breaker), and a 5 lb ball and chain. I can say all of them hurt more than the broadsword. Also don't try these things at home we were young and stupid and the women made us feel invincible.

[Bookwyrm]

You let someone hit you with a 10 pound mace in chain! All I can say is, "You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din!"

[Galadorn]

Originally posted by Eosin

This is an optional rule for DMs who want to break things up into Slashing/Piercing/Blunt type of damage. It is not considered part of the standard rules. Start reading from page 177...it becomes more obvious than just reading the bullet points.

 

I do agree that it would seem that mail would suck against blunt.

 

Actually, no armor was typically all metal. Most had padded leather-like armor underneath. So there would be some blunt force absorbtion.

[AmadanNaBriona]

my 2 cents

 

IMHO, based on several years of live steel fighting experiences, I have to say that I don't like the category special rules...they're all a bit to final in effect, and reduce the effects of armor to rather unrealistic levels. I do like the "Special Manuvers for Weapons" on FH pg 188... they feel a lot better to me. Blunt Trauma in chainmail does suck...I've fought mainly in a chain hauberk for the last 5 years or so since I started going the way of the Galloglaigh, and I've had ribs broken (Body damage) from solid sword hits, never mind maces or the like. And I ALWAYS parry peircing weapons, like my buddys lucern hammer....it'd be suicide not to.

 

For my new campaign, I've been toying with a couple of ideas that seem to increase the realism, but may add too much bookkeeping...

 

#1) adding 15 - activation to all basic armor...the hit locations are large enough that there are probably chinks that can be exploited.

 

#2) allowing CSL to be used to lower the activation roll for a hit... I have yet to decide if it'll be one or two levels per step on the activation chart

 

#3) make armor semi-ablative... any hit on armor where the DC exceeds the DEF drops the activation roll for that location. This is the heavy bookkeeping part...I may make up a new hit location chart for keeping track of this and individual wounds for healing purposes. This allows armor to be damaged with heavy use without just whittling away the body till it falls off... This was inspired by the "trial by combat" scene in Game of Thrones where the merc whittles away the fully armored knight by hacking at his feild plate till he opened a hole, then going for it.

[Markdoc]

Originally posted by Monolith

I believe some of the rationale might be the fact that a bashing weapon would crush the plate into the person's body. Ringed-type mails would flow around the bashing weapon whereas the plate would stay concaved. I'm not saying this is the reason for the optional rule, but I do not that maces and the like were considered better weapons to use against a fully-armored knight than a sword. The mace could bash into and through the plate where the sword would slide off.

 

Or break - a not uncommon occurrence.

 

The real reason for making Plate less effective against bashing weapons is purely one of game balance - sure the plate - once bashed in - would stay concave, but any blow strong enough to put a significant dent in normal plate armour would kill or maim someone in chain or splint armour - as well as driving bits of the armour into the wound: a frequent cause of blood poisoning.

 

So what is the disadvantage of plate? Well, there isn't any really, apart from cost/heat buildup. It is maybe slightly less flexible than mail, but it handles all sorts of attacks better than mail or leather. So the "vulnerable to crushing attacks" was just put in there to make it a little different and give people reasons to choose something other than plate. Frankly I find almost all of the suggested alternate rules rather silly (adding bronze plates to the outside of your leather jerkin makes it less protective!), so use none of them.

 

cheers, Mark

[ThothAmon]

I'm following this discussion with interest, and I have a few questions/thoughts:

 

I was given to understand (from a long-time re-enactor) that plate armour being cumbersome, hindering movement et al was something of a fallacy. Specifically, properly fitted plate would not stop a trained warrior from speedily getting back on their feet or pulling a backflip. Any comments as to the veracity of this?

 

Similarly, a medieval historian accquaintance led me to believe that dead bodies in plate would often float to the surface of a lake. Comments?

 

The old 'Pirates' supplement indicated that armour DEF should be halved versus damage from gunpowder weapons, a rule which is used in our campaign. Any thoughts on this?

 

Lastly, regards the coverage rules and Activation rolls, does the DEF coverage not presume that the target is active in combat and thus catching blows on covered areas?

 

Whilst I find the discussions (and alternate rules) to be intriguing, simple scaleable DEF from leather up to plate has worked well in our campaigns. For me the added complexity of these realistic ideas does appear a little redundant given that the typical FH campaign involves sorcery, mythical critters et al.