Weapon Types vs. Armor Types

[Lucius]

2 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

My friend used to criticise Space Opera (Fantasy Games Unlimted) for its detail.

 

Player: I kick in the door

 

GM:  OK, first let’s calculate the friction coefficient between your boot and the door....

 

 

There's an affliction codfishing between my boot and the door? I kick it out of the way and THEN kick in the door!

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary says that's one way to get your kicks...

[Brian Stanfield]

So let me ask this: is there a difference, realistically, between a sword "slash," an axe "chop," a crossbow bolt's "pierce," or a mace's "crush" against plate mail? Do they have the same effect, or is there a distinguishable difference?

[Doc Democracy]

In real life there are differences to everything, in a story there is no actual difference.  In a game?  Well that is a design decision....:-)

[Brian Stanfield]

But dang it, I'm trying to get everyone else to decide for me! 

[drunkonduty]

Palladium has a Weapons and Armour book that lists different types of armour as having different values vs. different types of attack: Slashing, Piercing, Blunt all have different values.  Officially it works like DND AC rather than as damage reduction, but I ran it as damage reduction back in the olden days and it worked fine. It is for sale on their website for $9.00 if you want steal from it wholesale.

[Brian Stanfield]

On 1/21/2018 at 6:41 PM, drunkonduty said:

Palladium has a Weapons and Armour book that lists different types of armour as having different values vs. different types of attack: Slashing, Piercing, Blunt all have different values.  Officially it works like DND AC rather than as damage reduction, but I ran it as damage reduction back in the olden days and it worked fine. It is for sale on their website for $9.00 if you want steal from it wholesale.

 

Funny thing is, I've had that book for over 30 years and forgot all about how useful it is. It actually does what Doc was suggesting with modifications to the armor rather than the weapons. 

[drunkonduty]

It is a pretty good source book.

 

I should try and find my old copy... although IIRC it is about 1300km away in a mate's basement.

[Brian Stanfield]

I have it and a few others, and they're so old they're falling apart. They were all cheesy little books that look like they were produced on a typewriter and run on a mimeograph, but the material is so wonderful, and I didn't really care how it looked in the '80s. I should look at the new edition and see if it's any easier to read. 

[Cantriped]

I admit, I haven't read the entire thread, so some of this may already have been mentioned:

 

As a general rule , I like the idea of introducing granularity to the damage mechanics... but in practice it is usually more trouble than it is worth to both balance it in play and represent the realistic differences accurately. For example, many of the example suits of armor should realistically have differing rPD, and rED values, as well as some additional nonresistant PD and ED; but that level of granularity introduces a massive amount of detail to the game elements being used. This isn't so much of a problem during play, assuming everyone understands the mechanics. The problem in my experience is when I'm teaching new players said mechanics and their eyes glaze over at the block of game information three to five times the size of the simple, abstract models used in the official material.

 

Were I setting up such a system, every weapon and suit of armor would have to be rebuilt from scratch based on extensive research and arbitrary game balance considerations.

 

I think most weapons would end up as multipowers with slots representing their various modes of use. The slot would allow me to define the special effects, and any benefits or drawbacks inherent to that mode of use. Most weapons would provide two or three DCs worth of damage more than the STR Min of the weapon (assuming two-handed use, regardless of it's actual handedness). For reference; a Battle Axe provides +17 APs worth of damage over it's two-handed STR min of 13 (it can also be used one-handed with 15 STR).

For example, an Arming Sword would cause a given amount of slashing or piercing Killing Damage when used to hack or stab respectively, but would also take Does No Knockdown/back. The Arming Sword would cause a reduced number of DCs worth of blugdeoning Normal Damage and lose the benefits of the weapon's reach (which would be Linked to the Hacking and Stabbing slots) when the wielder uses the flat of the blade, the hilt, or pommel to strike with instead of the edge or point of the blade.

 

Armor would end up as Compound Powers providing various levels of partially advantaged and/or partially limited DCV, PD, rPD, ED, rED, and unusual defenses as appropriate to how that type of armor reacts to given types of damage.

For example a suit of chainmail would provide reasonable Defense, with slightly more PD & rPD than ED & rED, and a minimal DCV bonus (representing the armor's ability to deflect a glancing blow). A small portion of it's PD & rPD (probably half of the amount by which the chainmail's Defense exceeds its padding's) would take Doesn't Protect Against Piercing Damage. A suit of chainmail might also purchase additional DCV, PD, and/or rPD with Only Protects Against Slashing Damage. A suit of chainmail might also only provide as much Defense against Falling and Collision Damage as its padding would have alone (the rest being limited as above).

[Brian Stanfield]

That's some good stuff, and pretty much fits what I was originally considering. I like the Multipower approach. It makes a lot of sense, and is pretty exciting to consider. However, as you say, this is a nightmare of bookkeeping, and would best be saved as an experiment for very experienced players who want to play around with granular combat rules.

[massey]

If you think our discussions here get heated, you should go over to a weapons forum and see the arguments there.  People in real life can't agree what type of weapon is best versus what type of armor, or how certain weapons were used historically.  The biggest problem is that we don't really have a lot of answers for some of this stuff.  Even if you see weapon tests on the internet, it's hard to know if the people are using real stuff or just some piece of junk they bought at the mall.

 

A gambeson (the traditional D&D "padded armor") is actually fairly effective against slashing attacks.  It has multiple layers of wool or linen.  The edge of a sharp blade may cut the thing it's in contact with, but it doesn't cut through multiple separate layers that well.  Now, if you get the sword really sharp, you might be able to slice through the padding.  But if you hit a really sharp sword against a hard surface (like metal armor or a shield), it isn't going to remain really sharp for very long.  You're much more likely to roll the edge of the blade or chip it, compared to a sword that isn't razor blade sharp.

 

I'm not an expert by any means, I know just enough to know that I'm basically clueless.  There was a 20th century British guy named Ewart Oakeshott who created a classification system for medieval swords.  He identified 13 types of sword, each one with different characteristics.  In D&D, all of these would be considered longswords, bastard swords, and maybe great swords.  His classification system didn't take into account sabres, broadswords, short swords, katanas, rapiers, scimitars, or anything else like that.  He found 13 types of basically medieval knight-looking swords.  Honestly they all look the same to me.  But some have a narrower blade, so the tip can fit between the rings of a suit of mail.  The wider blades are going to be a little more forgiving when you are cutting, but the tip may be too fat to fit through the small rings.  Do you or your players really want to have a noticeable difference between an Oakeshott Type XII and an Oakeshott Type XVIIIc?  That's not even getting into fake armor, like dragon scale or a magic ring of protection.

 

Historically, people were trained to use all parts of their weapon.  There are medieval illustrations showing people half-swording and using pommel strikes.  That appears to have been a standard thing.  So if you were using a sword, instead of just stabbing and slashing, you might grab the blade with your other hand (the part closer to the cross-guard that you intentionally didn't sharpen), spin it around and smash the other dude in the face with the big metal knob on the end of the handle.

 

If you really want to do the work, you can come up with bonuses and penalties to take into account every kind of medieval weapon and armor.  I don't think most people are gonna enjoy that, or know enough about it to really care.  I think most players want Lord of the Rings, Conan, or Braveheart instead.

[Brian Stanfield]

4 hours ago, massey said:

Historically, people were trained to use all parts of their weapon.  There are medieval illustrations showing people half-swording and using pommel strikes.  That appears to have been a standard thing.  So if you were using a sword, instead of just stabbing and slashing, you might grab the blade with your other hand (the part closer to the cross-guard that you intentionally didn't sharpen), spin it around and smash the other dude in the face with the big metal knob on the end of the handle.

 

I started looking at historical European martial arts and various other things and quickly discovered how vast that subject is. As you say, it's way beyond what most players want.

 

I just like to ask these sorts of questions as a way to play out the HERO System and see how it would look. I don't expect to use something so complicated, but I'm curious what it would look like. I think Cantriped's Multipowers approach might be the best simulation, but that becomes a whole problem of nesting categories within categories: which attack vs. which armor vs. which Advantages vs. which Limitations, etc. etc. It could be fun as an experiment for one battle, but not as a long-term campaign device.

[Pattern Ghost]

On 1/17/2018 at 7:21 AM, Brian Stanfield said:

I could make stuff up, but is there a good resource that would be historically accurate? 

 

https://www.amazon.com/Archaeology-Weapons-Prehistory-Chivalry-Military/dp/0486292886

 

Oakeshott is pretty much the go to guy for evolution of medieval weapons and armor.

[Pattern Ghost]

OK, this might not be the most cogent post I've made, b/c I'm a bit under the weather, so apologies in advance.

 

Weapons evolve to defeat armor. Armor evolves to defeat weapons. This cycle continues up to the limit of current technology. New technology restarts the cycle.

 

That's my very basic understanding of things.

 

So, for the game table, I'd let everything flow from that cycle, stopping short of the introduction of new technology.

 

What this means is, weapons and armor can both be abstracted out to their current static tech level without worrying too much about this or that type of damage. While you can go into detail about what weapon is better versus what armor, you don't need to if people are bringing the same pool of weapons to the battle field. This is the opposite of what the OP is asking for, I know. But I'm going to share a few thoughts I had while reading the thread in the hope that some of it is still useful or may be useful for someone else.

 

First, let's talk about armor types in RPGS: There are too many. Realistically, only a few armor types are used in a given region during a given period. RPGs throw in everything and the kitchen sink, because that's the route D&D took with literally every aspect of the game. There's nothing wrong with that approach, and it provides a lot of choices and variety, but there's also no real reason to stick to it, either. So, here's how I'd break down armor for a sort of realistic setting (with magic, more on that in a minute):

 

Heavy clothing: Offers only a low level of damage resistance.

Padded garments: Worn under heavier armor or used as sole armor. Gambesons. Offers a decent amount of Armor  (or whatever it's called now)

Flexible metal armor: Chain or coats of plates. Worn over a gambeson. Provides even more Armor.

Plate: Pieces of plate provide the most Armor.

 

Pretty simple. These armor types cover everything from civillians to peasant conscripts and foot soldiers to mercenaries and town guards to heavy cavalry.

 

The biggest distinction is how much of the better types of coverage people are bringing to the battle field. Hero offers two obvious ways to handle this: Hit Locations and Activation Rolls. I find Activation Rolls against layers of armor appealing and simple. For example, a footman protecting his most vital parts:

 

Layer One: Gambeson (and whatever the leg equivalent is called). No activation roll, provides, let's say 3 Def.

Layer Two: Chest and Head covered in Mail. Activation on 14-, let's say another 3 Def. Not that the chain has lower defense, but our footman will be getting 6 Def on a successful activation, meaning that's actually the value of the chain, and his lower defense bits will be hit on a failed activation. Also, I just pulled those numbers out of thin air, so feel free to use whatever numbers you like.

 

Let's take a half armored knight, wearing a full suit of chain and a plate helm and upper body armor. Apparently, ditching leg armor was pretty common to save weight.

 

Layer One: Gamebson AND Chain. This is the no activation roll layer. Def 6.

Layer Two: Plate, adding 4 Def (total 10) on a 15- activation.

 

Let's say a town guard who's not particularly well-off:

 

Layer One: Sturdy woolen clothing: No activation roll, maybe 1 or 2 damage resistance.

Layer Two: Padding and a coat of plates covering his chest only. Let's say 6 PD, with an activation of 11-

Layer Three: Metal Helmet with padding: 2 PD with an activation of 8-

 

He'd roll one activation roll. If it's under 8-, he takes a shot to the head against a total of 8 PD of armor, plus another 1 or 2 damage resistance. If it's between 9 and 11, he takes a shot to the chest with 6 PD of armor and another 1 or 2 damage resistance. If he doesn't make the 11-, he's only got his normal PD/ED with 1 or 2 of that made resistant from his clothing.

 

Easy peasy.

 

Shields, I'd use the old 4th Edition Fantasy Hero idea of boosting DCV, allowing the same bonus to the OCV of Block attempts.

 

Some other considerations for armor: How easy is it to move in? How heavy is it? Oh, it's metal? LIGHTNING BOLT!* (b/c fantasy hero). These can be baked in advantages/disadvantages, and I'm sure whatever version of FH  you have has ideas on those, like LTE for heavier armor setups, DEX based roll penalties (really on almost every type of armor), etc.

 

As for weapons: You might want to group your "common" weapons familiarity groups by region, with an eye toward what armor you're providing based on the campaign, but beyond that, I wouldn't worry too much about it. You could probably look at historical info from the historical European martial arts guys an come up with martial arts that are specific to certain weapons or weapons categories, but that'd also be a bit of work to make distinctive. (And there's going to be overlap anyway.)

 

*Edit: Lightning Bolt: 2d6 RKA + 2d6 RKA, Only vs. Metal  Armor.

[Pattern Ghost]

You might like this guy's YouTube channel:

 

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCt14YOvYhd5FCGCwcjhrOdA

[TheDarkness]

I think once you decide how to deal with how each armour type deals with each type of weapon(bludgeoning, slashing, thrusting), it's simple. Aside from doing it in game time.

 

Sword was pretty much always taught after staff/spear for a reason, since they follow similar mechanical principles. Also because, in reality, knowing sword meant knowing sword against sword, sword against spear, sword against sword and shield, etc.

 

The key difference is range. Once inside, a spear is now a bludgeoning weapon(yes, there are a few moves for bringing the point to bear inside, but the available moves if you're holding a long weapon and your opponent is inside are made up of far far more bludgeoning  than stabbing, and pretty much no slashing). At long range, staff is a more powerful bludgeoning weapon than it is in close range, because the leverage is far greater if you hold it at the base than at the center. This holds true for spear as well.

 

As for plate, there is a reason that thrusts became more prevalent after the age of armour ended. Heavy swings allowed for more pressure to be put on the armored opponent while allowing momentum to be more continuous, while thrusts were less likely to penetrate. Thrusts were ideally saved for when position allowed them against points where mobility requirements meant that the plate could not cover that point.

 

Arrows and bolts are really just piercing, range is also their biggest thing.

 

The key difference between most rpg approaches to weapons and a realistic one is that, in reality, assuming competence in your weapon, the most important knowledge at play for you is knowledge of how one fights with what your opponent has. If that knowledge is zero, you are likely to die. For a realistic game(in which players also wanted this realism) I've used a house rule that stated that the skill roll at play in attacks would be no higher than the skill level one has in their opponent's weapons, so if one had a high skill in sword but low in staff, and the opponent had a staff, then the lower of the two applied. The players were supposed to be seasoned soldiers, so it encouraged the purchase of a broad range of weapon types(each specific weapon did not have to be covered, long weapons, straight swords, curved sword, flexible weapons, broad categories were bought). This often worked dramatically for the players, as the enemies also fell under the same limitations, which meant that lackies were in trouble.

 

Anyway, good luck with what you're working on.