Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Keenath 06-12-05, 04:32 PM	What's the purpose of having so many types of armor in the book, when some armors are strictly superior to others even within the same class? Among weapons, there's a general parity -- a axe and a sword of the same size and type (simple, martial, exotic) are basically balanced, with one doing bigger crits and one doing them more often, and so on. But when you look at armor, among the same class of armor, some armors are strictly better than others! For example, look at Heavy armor. Full Plate is strictly better than anything else on the list, with a total defense score (armor plus max. dex) of 9, where all the others are 7, and full plate has a lower armor check than armors with worse protection! Once you're past 2nd level, there's literally no reason to wear any heavy armor that isn't full plate. Okay, you say, but Full Plate is the best of the best. It's the ultimate defensive technology. Fine, so explain the existence of Splint Mail (which isn't mail -- that is, made of chain -- at all, and should be called 'splint armor'). It costs nearly the same as Banded Mail (also misnamed), but the Banded armor is less restrictive in all ways, and provides the same AC! Can anyone honestly say they chose to wear Scale Mail (again, bad naming)? You might have had it at first level, but I bet as soon as you had 150 gp to spare, you traded up to a Breastplate, with exactly the same stats and better AC! I have the same beef with shields -- why does anyone carry a light shield instead of a buckler or heavy shield? A buckler does everything a light shield does, but gives your hand extra mobility. The exception? Shield bash. You can't bash with a buckler, nor put spikes on it (which only help while bashing). On the other hand, if you plan to bash a lot, you probably want the biggest shield available anyway, and will use a heavy shield! In fact, only the light armor list makes mechanical sense, with steadily increasing amounts of defense and restriction. What's wrong with the other lists? As a side note, would it be particularly unfair to the players if I outlawed Full Plate? I think one of the reasons that we see such a strange mishmash of stats on the armor is because you're looking at a timeline -- splint mail was used at one time, but it was replaced by less restrictive armors as soon as the technology was good enough. (In some cases there are geographical factors, too.) Historically, by the time you're looking at full plate, only foot soldiers and high-speed light cavalry units would be wearing anything else. I'd still allow dragonhide full-plate, which I think is a nice idea, since that puts some of the "special" back into dragonhide armors.
High King Tigernmas 06-12-05, 04:41 PM	I think the idea is some armour limits speed, some is more expensive (for beginning a campaign this limits what armour you will get). I think you should chose your armour on your character, not on whether you think they'll survive better with full-plate! I mean a halfling rogue in full-plate?
sir_argenon 06-12-05, 04:51 PM	i also think its stupid that medium armor has the same speed restriction as heavy armor. medium armor should have a 25 movement rate for charatcers with a base of 30, or 15 w/ a 20 base. there is no reason whatsoever to use medium armor with so many penalties. if you have 100gp, just get a chain shirt. it doesnt affect your movement rate, has a higher max dex bonus, and is only 1 ac point away from the BEST medium armor. along with having a smaller armor penalty and arcane failure. IMO, Chainshirt is the best armor in the game BY FAR... just get a mithral chain shirt for your caster, or a Adamantine one for your barbarian/fighter and get it enchanted.
High King Tigernmas 06-12-05, 05:09 PM	i agree about the move restriction on medium armour, and I will mention that to my DM to fix actually!
DwarvinJedi 06-12-05, 05:10 PM	Full plate costs a heck of a lot more than any other armor, but I say this with weapons and now with armor, Price is not a balancing tool(except for Magic, because once you enchant something enough the base item's price is negligable.
Kintaran 06-12-05, 05:19 PM	I do find a fair number of my characters using mithril breastplates, for the additional point of armor bonus while retaining full speed. The thing is, although on pure statistics, full plate is easily one of the best, you cannot don it alone. Lesser forms of heavy armor can be used without assistance. Most games rarely see this come up, though. As noted, my personal favorite is mithril breastplate for that reason, +5 armor bonus with +5 max dex and no real penalties. Of course, this is really light armor, not medium. As noted, the only reason to use medium armor is if you have bad Dex and no gold. Of course, if your DM decides that no smith around can take the time to make you full plate, well then there you are. Plate is a pretty time-intensive construction.
Mike W 06-12-05, 05:24 PM	One reason for so many medium and heavy armors is simple economics - Plate Mail was expensive. That's why so few people used it, in spite of its superiority. Yes, Full Plate basically offers 2 free points of armor bonus over, say, Banded Mail. But Banded mail costs 250, well within the range of a frugal first or second level character. Full Plate shouldn't be affordable until at least level three, and then only at the cost of most of a player's other gear. And that's for adventurers, some of the (theoretically) richest people around. City militia and bandits in brigandine or scale mail starts making more sense then, doesn't it? :)
Endarire 06-12-05, 05:31 PM	AC-wise, mithril full plate is best; however, overall, I prefer a mithril chain shirt or masterwork studded leather for no armor check penalty plus a high max DEX bonus since I like mobile characters. -EE
Vahenir 06-12-05, 07:42 PM	Yeah, the armour list is kind of screwy. But then there are screwy things about weapons as well. How many characters do you regularly see carrying clubs and greatclubs, or using daggers as their primary main-hand weapon? That's why I think armour should be handled differently in D&D. Armour should have an AC bonus to represent how well it covers you, and the likelihood of it pushing away a blow entirely. And armour should also grant DR to protect against the hits that are landed against you. This would offer a lot more variation - but I think you'd still end up with full plate being the best armour in the game for most Fighter-types. Gotta face it: Plate armour was amazingly protective. The game does mirror that. As for your question though: No, it wouldn't be unfair. I haven't run a game where full plate was available in like 2 years. And even before that, I only allowed that particular armour occasionally. But if you get rid of full plate, I'd suggest using full plate's Max Dex or Check Penalty for half-plate. You should check out the Conan RPG by Mongoose (it's OGL-compliant). There are less 'styles' of armour, but there are also stacked versions (you can wear a breastplate, you can wear a mail hauberk, or you can wear both). And there's a reason to wear them all, depending on your character.
The.Vortex 06-13-05, 04:33 AM	Reagrding the other part of the original post, the one about Shields: At lower Levels, when you don't have the feat Oversized Two Wepon Fighting, wearing a light shield for Shield Bashing makes perfect sense since a large shield is considered a 1-handed Weapon for TWF penalties, whereas a small shield is a light weapon.. Or consider a Shield-bashing Character with Weapon Finesse.. with a small shield you can use WF, with a large one you can't.. And as far as the Buckler goes: in our games we use a house rule that Bucklers work only in melee, not against ranged attacks, since it is too small as a protection against something that fast..
Bluebrush 06-13-05, 07:27 AM	Also note a light shield is, well, lighter. This can come in handy for encumberance-concious characters.
Thelon Fairblade 06-13-05, 09:41 AM	An adamantine breastplate is DR 2/-. while a chain shirt is DR 1/- (DR 0/-, if comparing to the ubiquitous mithril chain shirt).
J_Riley 06-13-05, 10:54 AM	I consider the light shield to be the Cleric's shield. As I understand it, you cannot transfer your weapon to your shield hand when employing a heavy shield (to cast spells) but you can with a light shield. All those other armor types are DM tools. The PCs favor basically 3 types of armor - chain shirt for light, breastplate for medium and full plate for heavy. As a DM, I tend to equip my NPC bad guys with anything BUT those 3, just b/c it either forces my players to utilize what they have plundered or go through the extra step of finding buyers for the stuff so they can use the $ to jack up their current stuff. They will all fight over who gets the +1 Breastplate, but there is rarely any voice as to who wants the +1 Scale Mail - it's almost an auto sell item.
ajmastrean 06-13-05, 11:01 AM	The core of this issue is really not mechanics (which has a higher AC, lower penalty, etc). It is really about the cost, availability, and role of the player. Cost - simply put. Full-plate is expensive. Rare metals are rare, therefore expensive. Crafting items is expensive (expert labor needs). Availability - Very related to cost, just a different word. Not everyone can craft full-plate, so which towns are going to have it? The biggest and best. If you campaign has plenty of these, then your players should be able to buy full-plate, mithral breastplate, etc. Role - Some players don't care about that check penalty or max dex. So, combined with the other factors, a cheaper armor may be better!
Kerrexl 06-13-05, 05:20 PM	consitterring a level 3 character should have around 2700 gp, and a full plate costs 1500 gp, to buy - if you get it crafted to you - and then you have to wait around a year ingame time to get your armor - else you can buy a full plate at 1500 gp, and spend the 2d4 *100 gp to get i refitted to suit you... and the time it takes to do these modifications, weeks to months... it it not an armor which is rather appealing or something you are likely to have before level 5...
Centauri 06-13-05, 05:43 PM	I can think of two reasons not to wear the "best" armor: 1. It doesn't fit your character concept. Perhaps you want to style your fighter more after Strider or Fafhrd. Plate mail just doesn't fit your idea. 2. That's not what came with the treasure. Sure, I could sell my Splint Armor of Reflecting and get something "better" against weapons, but that might not fit my real needs.
Rulebook 06-13-05, 06:39 PM	Ive encountered a lot of towns and stuff that cant afford to produce the armor unless you provide the raw materials. lol 1500 gold is a lot of money to the common person. (even if it is pissant pocket change for adventurers)
Shaken, not Stunned 06-13-05, 08:56 PM	Yea. Price. And, despite what someone said, price is a balancing factor. That is why you have to pay 1150 to get a +1 armor. It's better, and is balanced because you can't get it until you get 1150. Thats why splint mail exists. Because a breast plate is expensive.
WaterRabbit 06-13-05, 09:57 PM	One other consideration is that some of these 'armor types' were not used together at the same time. There is a mix of technologies with the weapons and armors as well as cultures. A detailed campaign world will take into account these considerations. I can also tell you as someone who has worn and fought in leather, brigandine, and plate that medium armor is just as encumbering if not more than plate. Some definitions: Walk 1-5 mph (30 feet / round = 3.4 mph) Jog 6-10 mph (60 feet / round = 6.8 mph) | (90 feet / round = 10.3) or Run x 3 Run 11-15 mph (120 feet / round = 13.6 mph) or Run x 4 Sprint 16+ mph (150 feet / round = 17.0 mph) or Run x 5 You are not going to see anyone in chain mail running for any distance. If someone in chain mail can do a 440 yard dash in 60 seconds I would like to see it. Nor are you likely to see anyone in any medium or heavy armor sprinting for more than about 10 yards. I think this is one of the things D&D does right with armor. BTW, 9.78 seconds is the 2002 world record for the 100 meter dash which translates to 22.87 mph (201 feet / round), for comparison. This is a barbarian in light or no armor with the run feat or a 3rd level monk with the run feat or a 6th level monk without the run feat. So unless you can provide proof that you can run the 100 meter dash in medium or full armor or better yet how about the 800 meter dash for a more likely challenge, then I think the movement rate restrictions for armor are fine.
Me, Myself, & 101 others 06-13-05, 10:19 PM	Well, a lot of times what I'll do is when I'm setting the equipment for the Bad Guys, I'll give them nice armor but make it something that no one wants to wear, like Splint Mail, so that the party ends up selling it at a loss instead of using it. Also, price will come into consideration when you're outfitting a force. Like, if you have 200 followers/hirelings to equip, are you really going to shell out enough to put them all in full plate? Other than that, I always change the AC of Scale Mail, it should be at least as protective as chain.
Keenath 06-14-05, 01:23 AM	Of course I wouldn't outfit 200 people in full plate. But that doesn't mean I'll ignore the mechanics. An average human has 10 Dex. Assuming we have a bit of a spread, most people won't be beyond 14, so any armor with a max Dex of more than +2 is irrelevant to most people. Scale mail, I admit, makes sense in terms of being armor on the cheap. It's not very comfortable, but it's the best protection you can get under 100 GP. If you want to pay twice as much, you can get a much lighter chain shirt, but I understand that a city guard may not have the resources for such a thing. However, that doesn't explain things like splint armor. It's 200, and for a quarter more you get a far superior armor. Or, for the same price, you can get a breastplate that doesn't give QUITE so much protection, but is far, far superior. Nobody, speaking in real life terms, would wear splint mail when given a choice between that and a breastplate that weighs fifteen pounds less and lets you do backflips. You're more likely to stay alive in combat if you can move freely! Likewise, Chainmail is pretty useless. You can get a breastplate for only a third more. The 'army' argument is not relevant here -- if you're spending 150 gp on a single suit of armor, you aren't outfitting an army and you can probably afford the 50 extra to do it right. A breastplate was the Romans' favorite armor, but historically the pikemen (or locally equivalent cannon-fodder) were unarmored, or had whatever bits they could piece together -- the equivalent of studded leather if they were lucky, or padded armor if they weren't. After a battle maybe a few individuals would end up with something nicer, pilfered off an enemy or some such thing, but most of the rabble just wound up with a nice, long stick and a prayer. One other consideration is that some of these 'armor types' were not used together at the same time. There is a mix of technologies with the weapons and armors as well as cultures. And that's what I was talking about in the original post. The only reason anyone used the "inferior" armors in the PHB is because they couldn't get anything better at the time. It's the same reason no policeman would wear chainmail now, when they could be wearing a tac vest. (The nature of ballistics against chainmail notwithstanding.)
Thelon Fairblade 06-14-05, 09:33 AM	Even the 50gp difference between Chainmail and Breastplate is important, when magnified acros an army. If you're outfitting 100 guys, choosing chainmail saves you 5000 gp (or, allows you to outfit 30 more guys). And your average soldier doesn't need the extra Max Dex provided by the breastplate. Having said that, as a DM I pretty much only give the "bad" armors to "less civilized" or "poor" monstrous humanoids to show the difference between the heroes and the minions of evil. PC's wear breastplates and look dashing, orcs wear chainmail. Thundark the PC Minotaur wears a (large) chain shirt, the ogre army wears Hide. Minalla the Halfling Paladin wears (mithril) Full Plate; the goblin elite corps wears Splintmail.
Leaf_Mage22 06-14-05, 09:51 AM	In regards to the Armor nobody wears, Full plate being the best and better then medium armors. Well lets look at the whole picture rather then just a fraction. First off the DM will decide what armor you start out with, what armor is available in his world, or even what armor you will be able to get later on in the game, I mean its his world. Second Full plate costs alot just like everyone has said, and when your decideing on weather to spend all your coin buying food, supplies, weapons, magic scroll, why spend all on full plate when a Banded Mail, or chain shirt will do fine. Third mobility, I mean unless your a buff fighter or warrior full plate isn't very active armor. Try dodgeing a fireball or getting on your horse with full plate especially in the heat of battle. Forth having so many armors are great it gives the players more options to decide what type of armor will best suit him. Customizeing armors could be better then just give me the FULL PLATE. not only that but with full plate your gonna have a hard time slipping your pack on and off, or bending down to loot the corpse of a Npc you just killed. And if you come across a mage with a quick hand and a readied shocking grasp, leather armor is looking pretty good right now, instead of wearing a full metal conductor plate armor. So variety is the spice of life, I am glad that there are a good range of different armors for different characters. LeafMAGE22 :D
Tonus 06-14-05, 09:58 AM	I have the same beef with shields -- why does anyone carry a light shield instead of a buckler or heavy shield? A buckler does everything a light shield does, but gives your hand extra mobility. The exception? Shield bash. You can't bash with a buckler, nor put spikes on it (which only help while bashing). On the other hand, if you plan to bash a lot, you probably want the biggest shield available anyway, and will use a heavy shield! With regard to shield bashing: A heavy shield is effectively an off-handed one-handed weapon, whereas a light shield counts as an off-handed light weapon. If you are shield bashing in conjunction with two-weapon fighting, the light shield has the lesser penalty to *both* hands, which makes it superior for the purpose in my opinion. (Note that it doesn't matter whether your main-hand weapon is one-handed or light -- shield bashing specifically states that the *shield* is the off-hand weapon.)
kmccoy 06-14-05, 10:42 AM	consitterring a level 3 character should have around 2700 gp, and a full plate costs 1500 gp, to buy - if you get it crafted to you - and then you have to wait around a year ingame time to get your armor - else you can buy a full plate at 1500 gp, and spend the 2d4 *100 gp to get i refitted to suit you... and the time it takes to do these modifications, weeks to months... it it not an armor which is rather appealing or something you are likely to have before level 5... Not being a blacksmith myself I can't say for sure but my guess is that any blacksmith that took a year to make one suit of full plate would be out of buisness. I'd say at most the average time for making a full suit of armor couldn't be more than a two to three weeks, and the time to adjust a suit no more than a week.
Quirriff 06-14-05, 10:59 AM	Full Plate needs to be made for the character. Knights had personal armorers thus they had full plate. BTW plate is lighter than chain links covering an equal area. And where's Ring Mail, I want Ring Mail!
Kheldren 06-14-05, 11:05 AM	I haven't read all the responses in full, so apologies if this has been said before, but I think everyone's missed a big reason! Date! :confused: What do I mean? - Well not all of the armours were available at the same date - armour improved as technology improved. For example, if the DM want's the world to have technology equivalent to when the Vikings went raiding no-one will have plate - it won't have been invented yet. By giving the range of armours D&D allows the DM to choose the appropriate combination for his or her campaign.
Hairfoot 06-14-05, 11:10 AM	Different armours exist so that DMs can pitch their campaigns in different eras and different levels of technology. No warrior would pick scale mail when there's a breastplate & greaves avalaible, but the campaign may not feature a culture with sufficient artisanship to make a useful breastplate. Keep in mind that plate mail represents the height of the armourer's craft, which was only attained after centuries of experimentation with technique and materials.
Ged Coldplain 06-14-05, 11:26 AM	The armour problem is an everlasting problem, for my custom campaign, I made my own armour chart that made sense. All medium armour has a 25ft. speed reduction to balance them against a chainshirt, and minor armour class tweaks, heavy armour got a major overhaul to actually be good; all heavy armour grant 9 armour class if you have the sufficient dex except half plate, that only grant 8 armour, and comes with a low armour check penalty to compensate. So the solution makes all armour about equal if you have the stats needed. I don’t have the table here, but I believe it is balanced and makes sense for players and npc’s And for my thoughts on price: it really does not matter, its just symbolic, unless you play in the “players are superheroes, and everyone else are level 1 commoners from old Britain that fight to the death for 2 gold pieces”
Keenath 06-14-05, 11:48 AM	With regard to shield bashing: A heavy shield is effectively an off-handed one-handed weapon, whereas a light shield counts as an off-handed light weapon. If you are shield bashing in conjunction with two-weapon fighting, the light shield has the lesser penalty to *both* hands, which makes it superior for the purpose in my opinion. (Note that it doesn't matter whether your main-hand weapon is one-handed or light -- shield bashing specifically states that the *shield* is the off-hand weapon.) If shield bashing as an off-hand attack is something you think you'll actually do, you'd be better off wearing a buckler and weilding a short sword. You'll take a -1 on the attack, but you'll deal 1d6 instead of 1d3 damage, and when you aren't using the offhand weapon, you can put it away and use your arm for other things.
nightwing 06-14-05, 12:35 PM	As in real life, some stuff is just better than others. For example, a leaf-blower is just plain better than a rake. However, I can pick up a rake at the local hardware joint for about $2. For a leaf-blower I need to invest perhaps $100, and then provide either a long power cord or gasoline. IMC, D&D is modeled after feudal europe where there is very little middle class. One is either dirt poor, or filthy rich. Armorers are employed by the rich to outfit the troops with weapons and armor. In general, one can not hire an armorer to make a suit of armor without first seeking permission from and paying the noble for whom he works. Thus, low level adventurers really only have access to the less expensive, easier to make, less effective armors that can be made by an average blacksmith. To get fancy armor, one not only needs to scrape together the dough, but also be on good terms with a noble or lord who has the means to have the item made. Since the nobles' armies usually are recruited from the peasants, it makes sense that there is a supply of leather, scale, banded, small shields, etc to be bought or traded for (probably second-hand) from the peasantry...along with the more basic weapons: spears, shortswords, longswords, daggers, short bows, and things like that (peasant archers are never allowed to keep longbows, because they are too effective against heavily armored knights, and if a peasant got the idea that he could easily take out a knight, he might get ideas of starting a rebellion or revolt against his lord). These points are all moot for a high level party (say 9th level or so) because many adventurers will by then have established themselves, and perhaps even be lords of their own manors. So yes, there are inequalities in the armor listings, and the players are at the mercy of what they can find and afford.
sfubear 06-14-05, 03:06 PM	Okay, you say, but Full Plate is the best of the best. It's the ultimate defensive technology. Fine, so explain the existence of Splint Mail (which isn't mail -- that is, made of chain -- at all, and should be called 'splint armor'). It costs nearly the same as Banded Mail (also misnamed), but the Banded armor is less restrictive in all ways, and provides the same AC. Does anyone anywhere, still has history classes, or read anything that isn't D&D......The reason Keenath that these ARmors are called what the are, is because in real life history that is there name, and they were called that because guess what, they are mail, just a different kind the chain mail.....if anyone wants to surf the web for something other then things they think they understand but don't then I have a great website for you, it will take you to a lot of information that you would otherwise not get on the WotC wedsite....www.yahoo.com
Vahenir 06-14-05, 04:21 PM	Does anyone anywhere, still has history classes, or read anything that isn't D&D......The reason Keenath that these ARmors are called what the are, is because in real life history that is there name, and they were called that because guess what, they are mail, just a different kind the chain mail.....if anyone wants to surf the web for something other then things they think they understand but don't then I have a great website for you, it will take you to a lot of information that you would otherwise not get on the WotC wedsite.... Sorry kiddo. That's -not- what they were called in real life. Scale armour would have been called exactly that. Mail -explicitly- refers to a type of armour made of interlocking rings of metal. Especially since the term 'mail' MEANS "net" or "mesh." (From the Old English mayle, the French maille, the Italian maglia, and the Latin macula). The only time 'mail' has been used to describe almost any armour was during the Victorian era when people had an extreme ignorance of the eras directly preceeding them. These were the same people that claimed a military sword of only a few centuries earlier was 30 pounds! Or that Medieval peoples 'knew nothing about combat.' People of the Victorian era were surprisingly ignorant of their past - yet instead of authoritive works, D&D designers decided to use Victorian-style descriptions/names? Face it - it was a really annoying oversight on WotC's part. Because scale was never called "scale mail" - except perhaps by the ignorant Victorians, as I mentioned. So maybe -you- should do a little more research outside of your computer.
Mellowship Slinky 06-14-05, 04:51 PM	Considering D&D is based on Tolkien, who heavily followed victorian-era ideals, morals, and terms. WotC is just going with the flow.
allenchan 06-14-05, 04:54 PM	who cares if scale mail sucks and/or is illogical when there's things such as bracers of armor and rings of protection? :P
Vahenir 06-14-05, 04:56 PM	Considering D&D is based on Tolkien, who heavily followed victorian-era ideals, morals, and terms. WotC is just going with the flow. That's not true. Tolkien followed early Medieval/"Dark Ages" ideals, morals, and terms found in HIS source material like Beowulf and the Kalevala. If Tolkien had been using Victorian ideals and themes, Lord of the Rings would have been -much- different.
Sinaz 06-14-05, 05:06 PM	Sorry kiddo. That's -not- what they were called in real life. Scale armour would have been called exactly that. Mail -explicitly- refers to a type of armour made of interlocking rings of metal. Especially since the term 'mail' MEANS "net" or "mesh." (From the Old English mayle, the French maille, the Italian maglia, and the Latin macula). A) You all are thinking too hard over this issue. ;) B) So am I... "Mail" actually refers solely to the linking of objects together in a pattern. So like, chainmail is made of linking chain loops that are 'mailed' together in patterns, scale mail is made by mailing small scale-like plates together in a pattern, plate mail is used to link larger plates together (typically seen in asian armor.) In fact, look at Japanese armor, they mail just about anything together... The thing I'd actually like to know... is how and why all the different swords are named the way they are... Like the Bastard Sword... which I used to think was named because it goes into a bastard, which apparently isn't really what you call the sheath. But instead because it is a bastardization of the european long sword and great sword. At what point is a short sword a short sword and not a 'knife' or 'dagger' or 'long sword'. What's the happy length that makes a short sword?
Vahenir 06-14-05, 05:25 PM	B) So am I... "Mail" actually refers solely to the linking of objects together in a pattern. So like, chainmail is made of linking chain loops that are 'mailed' together in patterns, scale mail is made by mailing small scale-like plates together in a pattern, plate mail is used to link larger plates together (typically seen in asian armor.) In fact, look at Japanese armor, they mail just about anything together... Nope. 'Mail' - as I already stated - means mesh or net. The only armour that comes out looking like a net is mail (what you might call chainmail). Any other armour is NOT mail. From SFI: "There are several issues involved here, all of which can be traced back to Victorian scholars. Today we define mail as it was defined in the Middle Ages. It consists of a "fabric" of interlocked metal rings which form a strong, flexible mesh armour. Each ring is linked through four others, two in the row above it and two below. Although there are variations, this "4-in-1" pattern is by far the most prevalent. The word "mail" is derived through the Old English mayle, French maille, and Italian maglia, from the Latin macula meaning the mesh of a net. Roman mail is known as lorica hamata. The above definition of mail was not the one used by Victorian scholars though. They used the word "mail" to describe any sort of metallic body armour. It is common to see the word "mail" in translations of early texts in instances where it is clear that the subjects cannot have been wearing mail. One example is the biblical description of Goliath wearing a coat of bronze mail [Samuel 17.5]. The use of the word "mail" in this instance was not meant to be specifically referring to 4-in-1 mail, but as a general term to describe body armour - in this case, bronze scale armour. Other examples of the misuse of this word include using "plate mail" and "scale mail" instead of plate armour and scale armour. Because of this overly-generic use of the term "mail" they needed a word to differentiate 4-in-1 mail from other types of body armour - hence the term "chain mail." If the word "mail" is used in its correct context then "chain mail" is superfluous and does not need to be used at all. Scholars such as Meyrick attempted a very "literal" interpretation of the armour depicted in contemporary illustrations (e.g. the Bayeux Tapestry) and invented a variety of constructions to closely resemble them. These constructions included banded, tegulated, mascled, and trelliced mail. It has since been demonstrated that Meyrick's proposals were either impractical or could not be physically reconstructed to resemble the illustrations. The general consensus today is that the difficulties involved in realistically illustrating medieval mail led to a variety of conventions and shortcuts and that all of the contemporary illustrations are depicting nothing more elaborate than standard 4-in-1 mail [see Claude Blaire, European Armour (1958), p.35-36] One of the types of armour interpreted from contemporary illustrations was given the term "ring mail." The Victorian definition of ring mail consists of a foundation garment upon which non-interlocking metal rings were attached. Today this would be more accurately called "ring armour" not "ring mail". As has already been said, the illustrations of armour in items such as the Bayeux Tapestry are all likely to be different methods of rendering the same construction, i.e. 4-in-1 mail, and that the proposed "ring armour" is unlikely to have existed in Europe at the time. However, ring armour does seem to have been utilised in different periods and places, albeit rarely. Stone's Glossary (p.22) has a photo and a description of ring armour which apparently came from north-eastern Asia. In Europe there was a type of armour called an "eyelet doublet" which might be classified as a type of ring armour. However the eyelet doublet dates to the 16th-17th centuries - much later than the illustrations in question. Charles Ffoulkes, The Armourer and his Craft, gives illustrations of "eyelet coats" on p.91. One citation is John Smythe, Observations and Orders Militarie (1591) p.185, "Archers should wear either eyelet holed doublets that will resist the thrust of a sword or dagger and covered with some trim to the liking of the captain... or else jacks of mail quilted upon fustian." The final problem is that writers today use the terms mail, chain mail, ring mail, and ring armour interchangeably and it is often impossible to determine exactly what they mean to be talking about. It would be more accurate and less likely to cause confusion if the terms chain mail and ring mail were never used. Use mail and ring armour instead." The thing I'd actually like to know... is how and why all the different swords are named the way they are... Like the Bastard Sword... which I used to think was named because it goes into a bastard, which apparently isn't really what you call the sheath. But instead because it is a bastardization of the european long sword and great sword. Bastard sword and longsword are the same thing, historically speaking. A 'long-sword' was actually a sword designed for two-hand use. What you're thinking of is an arming sword. The term 'bastard sword' showed up to differentiate an arming sword designed strictly for single-hand use (like a 'viking' sword) from a hand-and-a-half sword like later-era arming swords were prone to be. Those types of swords were, indeed, the bastard son of arming swords and long-swords. But most of these terms are vague - as in, we don't really know -exactly- when they came to be used. It's probable that a Medieval knight would simply have called his weapon a 'sword' regardless of its size. At what point is a short sword a short sword and not a 'knife' or 'dagger' or 'long sword'. What's the happy length that makes a short sword? You're touching on a very obscure subject, there. Because it's unlikely that the term 'short sword' was even used, historically, until the advent of the smallsword and spadoon. If it was used historically, we can presume it would have referred to arming swords in comparison to larger swords (like long-swords). But where exactly the distinction is drawn depends on which historian you talk to (though most will deny the existance of the 'short sword.'). In the opinions of many, for example, a xiphos would be no more than a big dagger, but it's most certainly referred to as a sword even in historical text. But of course- it was used in a time when it was one of the biggest long-bladed weapons in existance. To sum it up: The term 'short-sword' is the most ambiguous, historically, and difficult to define. If one is pressed, a shortsword would be less than 3 feet, and longer than 1-1/2 feet.
Sinaz 06-14-05, 05:34 PM	Ok, I concede... I should have worded it more like... plate mail and scale mail are armors in which the chain mail is used to secure armor plates to the underlying chain infrastructure. This is done by leaving gaps that would have plates locked into by looping chain rings through the chainmail shirt and holes on the plate.
kaldrin 06-14-05, 05:38 PM	i also think its stupid that medium armor has the same speed restriction as heavy armor. medium armor should have a 25 movement rate for charatcers with a base of 30, or 15 w/ a 20 base. there is no reason whatsoever to use medium armor with so many penalties. Agreed, but they'd have to change the weights a bit. Heavies would have to go up and mediums would have to go down slightly. You could also make it STR-based. Give each armour listed a STR value and when you're below that, your movement gets cut down... I've never liked the fact that a STR 22 character still gets slowed down while wearing 50 lbs of armour.
Keenath 06-14-05, 06:02 PM	But most of these terms are vague - as in, we don't really know -exactly- when they came to be used. It's probable that a Medieval knight would simply have called his weapon a 'sword' regardless of its size. Exactly -- for purposes of the game, we have a bunch of specific names for weapons that weren't explicitly named in their culture. A longsword is a claymore is a greatsword is a zweihander, when you get right down to it. It just depends on who you ask and when. English knights would not have used claymores, but they might have referred to "Scottish long-swords", or "those savages with their great-swords", or any number of other terms. ...it's unlikely that the term 'short sword' was even used, historically, until the advent of the smallsword and spadoon. If it was used historically, we can presume it would have referred to arming swords in comparison to larger swords (like long-swords). ... If one is pressed, a shortsword would be less than 3 feet, and longer than 1-1/2 feet.I agree entirely. In D&D, it's very common to fight with a longsword/shortsword two-weapon combo. If we go by that, then a main gauche is your basic shortsword. If you go by using it as a manuverable on-handed weapon, a roman Gladius is what you're looking at. In any case, there's no hard line where an inch on either side makes it long or short -- But in general, a "shortsword" should have a blade length about the same as the weilder's forearm. On a related topic, D&D greatswords are idiotically long. In the art, you always see people holding weapons that are so long they couldn't possibly have been used -- a single swing would leave you wide open to a fatal counterattack. Same thing at renfests, honestly. A five foot long sword may look nice on the mantle, but it's just not realistic.
Vahenir 06-14-05, 06:12 PM	Ok, I concede... I should have worded it more like... plate mail and scale mail are armors in which the chain mail is used to secure armor plates to the underlying chain infrastructure. This is done by leaving gaps that would have plates locked into by looping chain rings through the chainmail shirt and holes on the plate. There is no armour that -requires- mail as a backing. Plates are strapped directly around the body and to other plates, not to mail. And scales of scale armour are sewn/riveted to a leather or cloth backing that's worn. Neither requires the use of mail as part of the structure of the armour. And there's -still- no such thing as plate mail or scale mail. Plate armour, if you're referring to the type that has mail involved, is plate-and-mail, or transitional plate. Scale armour is just scale armour - no mail. On a related topic, D&D greatswords are idiotically long. In the art, you always see people holding weapons that are so long they couldn't possibly have been used -- a single swing would leave you wide open to a fatal counterattack. Same thing at renfests, honestly. A five foot long sword may look nice on the mantle, but it's just not realistic. I agree that the artwork for D&D is generally really silly, in regards to weapons. But then, I find double-bit axes longer than my legs and wider than my biceps to be just as silly. But there were five-foot-long swords, historically. But they weren't -too- heavy, were often half-sworded, and were wielded by men well over 6 feet tall.
Andrew 06-14-05, 08:18 PM	I've been considering a set of house rules on Armor for when I eventually get around to running a campaign. Mostly, I've got two principles that I'm thinking will make the Armors That Suck not suck quite as much. The intent is that they'll still not be up to the standard of the "good" armors, but not so bad that players will throw out the magic Scale Male in favor of the ordinary breastplate. 1. Do not allow Armor Check Penalties to be reduced to 0 for masterwork or mithral armors. This is mostly to keep Leather Armor in the running. 2. For masterwork versions of "armors that suck," increase the maximum Dexterity bonus by 1. Thus, Hide would have a max dex bonus of 5, Scale would improve to 4, Chainmail would go up to 3, and all the heavy armors other than Full Plate would go up to 1 or 2. The differences in cost are significant enough to distinguish all the armor types in a low-level game, but when the cost to enchant the armor makes the cost of the masterwork base armor insignificant, cost stops being a good balance. I also think it makes sense that masterwork versions would allow more mobility than the economy models, but for the armors that are already expensive for their class, there's no more efficiency to be gained by better craftsmanship. Any thoughts?
Sinaz 06-14-05, 08:29 PM	There is no armour that -requires- mail as a backing. Plates are strapped directly around the body and to other plates, not to mail. And scales of scale armour are sewn/riveted to a leather or cloth backing that's worn. Neither requires the use of mail as part of the structure of the armour. And there's -still- no such thing as plate mail or scale mail. Plate armour, if you're referring to the type that has mail involved, is plate-and-mail, or transitional plate. Scale armour is just scale armour - no mail. Then what the heck is this?? http://www.caradoc.org/~iain/gusari.html Just because you don't know about it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I have to say that your semantics are a bit nit-picky... "it's not platemail... it's plate-and-mail!!!" GAWD!!! Sinaz, you LOSER! Get it right! :rolleyes: Anyway, I call it semantics. The definition of mail by M-W: Main Entry: 4mail Function: noun Etymology: Middle English maille, from Middle French, from Latin macula spot, mesh 1 : armor made of metal links or sometimes plates 2 : a hard enclosing covering of an animal (as a tortoise) So, if they call it "Scale Mail" maybe they just want to save printing costs instead of printing scale-and-mail. If you read the descriptions, D&D are actually referring to your semantics of plate-and-mail and scale-and-mail. Which, I think platemail and scalemail rolls of the tongue a little easier, and essentially refers to the same thing. But I stand by the idea that "mail" by itself refers to the linking of metal in a pattern... by the 'mailer.' :P
Vahenir 06-14-05, 08:53 PM	plate mail and scale mail are armors in which the chain mail is used to secure armor plates to the underlying chain infrastructure. This is done by leaving gaps that would have plates locked into by looping chain rings through the chainmail shirt and holes on the plate. That was your initial post on the subject. I responded to that. I am still correct. There is no mail or scale armour that -requires- (which is exactly what I said) this type of construction. You can point to a very particular style of Japanese armour that often utilized that style of construction and it doesn't change a thing. And do not kid yourself - it is a rather unique style to begin with. My response, therefore, still stands. I have to say that your semantics are a bit nit-picky... "it's not platemail... it's plate-and-mail!!!" GAWD!!! Sinaz, you LOSER! Get it right! It's not semantics. And it's not being nit-picky. There's no such thing as plate-mail. Because you cannot make mail out of plates. It's contradictory. The word "and" is very meaningful in "plate-and-mail" as it enforces that the armour is made of BOTH, whereas "plate mail" implies mail MADE from plates. And I never called you a loser. So don't get so uppidy. Oh wow.. you posted the dictionary definition of mail - which is woefully incorrect. A dictionary is not a thesis on armour, now is it? Try looking up some of the dictionary's various entries for different kinds of swords. They can be pretty ludicrous (depending on the dictionary). I recall a dictionary I had a few years ago that described the word "falchion" as: "A short, curved sword found in the ancient Middle-east." Unfortunately, you can't really count on the dictionary when it comes to in-depth studies like weaponry and armour. I suggest actually getting some books on the subject - they'll be a lot more helpful. There are some wonderful books on the subject of mail - but if you want lighter reading, try finding a book about the arms and armour of the crusading era - as that will cover mail fairly well. So, if they call it "Scale Mail" maybe they just want to save printing costs instead of printing scale-and-mail. If you read the descriptions, D&D are actually referring to your semantics of plate-and-mail and scale-and-mail. Which, I think platemail and scalemail rolls of the tongue a little easier, and essentially refers to the same thing. But I stand by the idea that "mail" by itself refers to the linking of metal in a pattern... by the 'mailer.' There's no such thing as scale-and-mail, as an armour type. It's "scale armour." Period. 'Scalemail' in D&D refers to the style of armour that is a heavy leather or cloth backing with scales sewn or riveted to its surface. There's no mail involved. The only way to have "scale-and-mail" would be to wear a mail hauberk over or under your scale corselet. And I doubt it has anything to do with printing costs. It's just as easy to write "Scale Armour" "Scale" or "Scale Corselet." Plenty of other products have done just that - like Mongoose's Conan RPG. And note that 3E D&D does not have "platemail." It has half-plate (which is described as, apparently, transitional plate, or plate-and-mail) and full plate. Plate-mail is an old 2E term that was removed. Unfortunately, they kept all the other Victorian-errors of using mail incorrectly. YOU can call it whatever you want. If you want it to be mail, fine - in your games, call it mail. But no matter what -you- want to call it, it's not correct.
Vahenir 06-14-05, 08:59 PM	Oh.. and if you'd like to learn more about armour and why such terms as "scale mail" are inaccurate, without actually having to purchase a book, the Arador Armour Library isn't a bad place to start. Check out the articles and essays section: http://www.arador.com/articles/index.html
Sinaz 06-14-05, 09:01 PM	Oh.. and if you'd like to learn more about armour and why such terms as "scale mail" are inaccurate, without actually having to purchase a book, the Arador Armour Library isn't a bad place to start. Check out the articles and essays section: http://www.arador.com/articles/index.html Man, I got owned in this debate. First time in a while I couldn't maintain a devil's advocate argument. kudos. :bow:
Vahenir 06-14-05, 09:08 PM	You were playing Devil's Advocate?! Jesus Christ.. were you TRYING to give me a stroke? ~sits down and just breathes for awhile~ Anyway.. you gave it a good go. But as they say - the truth shall set you free. :teach:
WaterRabbit 06-14-05, 10:02 PM	consitterring a level 3 character should have around 2700 gp, and a full plate costs 1500 gp, to buy - if you get it crafted to you - and then you have to wait around a year ingame time to get your armor - else you can buy a full plate at 1500 gp, and spend the 2d4 *100 gp to get i refitted to suit you... and the time it takes to do these modifications, weeks to months... it it not an armor which is rather appealing or something you are likely to have before level 5... By the book it requires the following to make plate armor : DC = 10+8 = 18 Cost in SP = 1500 * 10 = 15,000 Raw materials cost 500 gp Minimum progress = 18 * 18 = 324 15,000 / 324 = 47 weeks. A dwarven armor expert could be +15 on his Craft (Armor) [4 ranks, +4 Int, +2 Racial, +3 Skill Focus., +2 Masterwork tools] check at 1st level. If he took 10 on each check it would take him 34 weeks. To repair (i.e. refit a different suit) is 7 weeks and 300 gp. A more likely scenario for a maker of plate armor would be an 8th level dwarven expert assisted by 3 assistants. 11 ranks, +5 Int, +2 Racial, +3 Skill Focus, +2 Masterwork Tools, +6 Aid another = 29 Taking 10 would give a 39 roll. This would take 22 weeks to make a set and 5 weeks to repair/refit. They could turn out 2.4 sets per 52 week year.
tyranith_of_hextor 06-14-05, 10:54 PM	Well, true, some armor is just better than others. The bad stuff is also generally not worth the armor bonus/check penalty/max dex but sometimes you can't get what ever just for lack of money. (This is generally not an issue for any levels higher than 3rd) Things I tend to use for "bad armor" are for mooks (Simple warriors in a small army or force). For example, I just put my PCs through a crazy temple of Hextor. Obvioulsy the head cleric had leadership and had lots of followers. I gave all of them banded mail and a light steel shield. (AC total of 17) Not bad for a large number of weak dudes. They aren't supposed to kill the PCs, they're supposed to be distractions. By saving money to get banded mail instead of a breastplate, extra traps and other things better for the temple. Of course, at higher levels they would have good stuff, but at higher levels they have more money.
Meshakhad 06-14-05, 11:08 PM	My current character wears banded mail, but that is just because she found it on someone she killed, and it is better than scale mail (which is what she was wearing). She is a cleric, so she wants the best protection available, except she can't afford full plate. I agree, why light shields? For a little extra, you can get either a buckler or a large shield. And half-plate. That is stupid. BTW, the reason half-plate has a lower max dex than full plate is that full plate is custom-made for each person.
Keenath 06-14-05, 11:12 PM	And there's -still- no such thing as plate mail or scale mail. Plate armour, if you're referring to the type that has mail involved, is plate-and-mail, or transitional plate.Or, sometimes, "Half-plate". :D I don't think anyone at the time ever called it "half plate", but that's what the game is talking about -- mail with solid plates in the important spots, which makes it faster to make and easier to fit than plate armor (it doesn't need to be individualized!) but provides almost as much protection as having solid plates all around. Man, I got owned in this debate. First time in a while I couldn't maintain a devil's advocate argument.Hmmm. Devil's advocate, huh? Without actually saying so or indicating in any way? Some people would consider that trolling, or at least impolite. Or, for that matter, a quick rear-covering. (Hah, I didn't REALLY mean that, I was just seeing what you'd do!)
Thamior Magus Rex 06-14-05, 11:27 PM	"Well not all of the armours were available at the same date - armour improved as technology improved. For example, if the DM want's the world to have technology equivalent to when the Vikings went raiding no-one will have plate - it won't have been invented yet." A very valid point. Furthermore keep in mind Usuary laws. Until the late 16th Century (when firearm technology made plate armour obsolete) it was illegal for someone not of noble birth or knighted to wear full plate armour. Even in the 1800's in Germany it was illegal for persons of lower social rank, again equal to at least a knight in social rank, to wear silk. As flavour in a campaign I introduced these laws into a game I DM'd.
Vahenir 06-15-05, 12:25 AM	A very valid point. Furthermore keep in mind Usuary laws. Until the late 16th Century (when firearm technology made plate armour obsolete) it was illegal for someone not of noble birth or knighted to wear full plate armour. Even in the 1800's in Germany it was illegal for persons of lower social rank, again equal to at least a knight in social rank, to wear silk. As flavour in a campaign I introduced these laws into a game I DM'd. Definitely. But that won't stop most gamers. Keep in mind that many games are just "camp in the woods, break down the cave door and kill everything inside." In which case, it doesn't matter if you can't wear full plate openly in Corvia - because they don't plan to go there anyway, at least not often. But it's definitely a good rule for more involved games where walking through towns, dealing with authorities, and generally doing the 'social' aspect of gaming is important. I use similar rules. There are all kinds of laws in my worlds - often getting players into trouble that don't adhere to them (and no, I don't tell them about the laws unless I think it's something one of the players should know). For example, in one of the cities of my setting - a conclave of Wizards are the ruling body. They don't allow weapons longer than 30 inches to be worn publicly. And since it's a low-magic world, persons in possession of a magical item must bring it directly to the Magistrate for review or risk being killed on site. That one got the Fighter in trouble once, when he strolled in to town with a glowing ring on his finger that the citizenry only THOUGHT was magical (and it wasn't). Anywho.. Or, for that matter, a quick rear-covering. (Hah, I didn't REALLY mean that, I was just seeing what you'd do!) Either way.. he dropped it. Let's not point fingers. Oh.. and on the subject of inferior armour types - I regularly have my characters wearing 'chainmail' armour - even though it's technically one of the most inferior armour styles you can get. It's just personal preference, though. I've found, through using that, that wearing inferior armour isn't really game-breaking. In most 'normal' games, I can grab the right magical equipment to cover my few weaknesses imposed by the armour - and enhancing the armour helps a lot too, especially if you can get third party or homebrew stuff into the game to reduce Check Penalty, increase Max Dex, or increase the AC bonus.
Nephlite 06-15-05, 12:32 AM	Definitely. But that won't stop most gamers. Keep in mind that many games are just "camp in the woods, break down the cave door and kill everything inside." In which case, it doesn't matter if you can't wear full plate openly in Corvia - because they don't plan to go there anyway, at least not often. But it's definitely a good rule for more involved games where walking through towns, dealing with authorities, and generally doing the 'social' aspect of gaming is important. I use similar rules. There are all kinds of laws in my worlds - often getting players into trouble that don't adhere to them (and no, I don't tell them about the laws unless I think it's something one of the players should know). For example, in one of the cities of my setting - a conclave of Wizards are the ruling body. They don't allow weapons longer than 30 inches to be worn publicly. And since it's a low-magic world, persons in possession of a magical item must bring it directly to the Magistrate for review or risk being killed on site. That one got the Fighter in trouble once, when he strolled in to town with a glowing ring on his finger that the citizenry only THOUGHT was magical (and it wasn't). Do you let smart/skilled people Knowledge (Law or whatever appropraite) get a roll to detect if they know the laws.
GlitterBoy 06-15-05, 01:00 AM	One other consideration is that some of these 'armor types' were not used together at the same time. There is a mix of technologies with the weapons and armors as well as cultures. A detailed campaign world will take into account these considerations. I can also tell you as someone who has worn and fought in leather, brigandine, and plate that medium armor is just as encumbering if not more than plate. Some definitions: Walk 1-5 mph (30 feet / round = 3.4 mph) Jog 6-10 mph (60 feet / round = 6.8 mph) | (90 feet / round = 10.3) or Run x 3 Run 11-15 mph (120 feet / round = 13.6 mph) or Run x 4 Sprint 16+ mph (150 feet / round = 17.0 mph) or Run x 5 You are not going to see anyone in chain mail running for any distance. If someone in chain mail can do a 440 yard dash in 60 seconds I would like to see it. Nor are you likely to see anyone in any medium or heavy armor sprinting for more than about 10 yards. I think this is one of the things D&D does right with armor. BTW, 9.78 seconds is the 2002 world record for the 100 meter dash which translates to 22.87 mph (201 feet / round), for comparison. This is a barbarian in light or no armor with the run feat or a 3rd level monk with the run feat or a 6th level monk without the run feat. So unless you can provide proof that you can run the 100 meter dash in medium or full armor or better yet how about the 800 meter dash for a more likely challenge, then I think the movement rate restrictions for armor are fine. The Greeks had runners that would run many miles to deliver massages. They would be wearing full gear which was well over a 100 pounds. The shield alone was in the 70 pound area. I guess men just are not as manly now days.
Kohdok 06-15-05, 01:26 AM	Three words: "Grappling Rust Monster" Full plate will draw that thing faster than even Half-plate will... One encounter with a pair of Rust Monsters will make people think twice about getting those armors... Create a world where the weaknesses of the so-called "Better armors" are attacked. For instance, someone would see another person in Full-Plate as someone important or someone with a lot of money. They will be the bandit's/pirate's/assassin's/Rust-monster's first target. As has been said before, limit what is handed out and what can be made. That works, too, but can make players angry...not to say that a Rust Monster wouldn't tick-em off, either... Oooh... New cursed-item idea "Full plate of Rust-monster attraction!"
Vahenir 06-15-05, 01:28 AM	The shield alone was in the 70 pound area. .......? You're kidding, right? Do you let smart/skilled people Knowledge (Law or whatever appropraite) get a roll to detect if they know the laws. Oh yes. Anyone with ranks in Knowledge (Laws & Customs) can roll to see if they've heard anything about the area in question. If they have, they roll again to see how much they know. I remember in one game - a player chose a Third Party Scholar class - and took a bunch of stuff like Knowledge (Laws & Customs), Gather Information and lots of Skill Focus and basically played himself as a Lawyer, getting the PCs out of trouble whenever they got hauled in for something. You'd think with a guy on their side that knew all the laws, they'd be careful not to break them. But hey, you can't stop the Giant-blooded Barbarian from getting into a bar fight, no matter how hard you try, once his kilt has been insulted.
GlitterBoy 06-15-05, 01:40 AM	.......? You're kidding, right? Pretty sure that is what the book I was reading stated. Can't look it up tonight in the book. I will look tomorrow to see. I will do a little net search now to see if I can find anything.
Vahenir 06-15-05, 01:44 AM	Pretty sure that is what the book I was reading stated. Can't look it up tonight in the book. I will look tomorrow to see. I will do a little net search now to see if I can find anything. What book is it? It's possible that it's either outdated, or written by someone that's outdated - still clinging to old Victorian beliefs. I mean, just think about it for a second - and it's not even logical. Would -you- be able to fight for a few hours holding up a 70! lb. shield? It's seriously just not possible. Shields are generally around 8 - 20 pounds, 20 pounds being exceptionally large, exceptionally thick, and really unwieldy. A Roman shield, for example, was only around 15 pounds.
Candarin 06-15-05, 04:49 AM	For who ever said swords weren't longer than 5 feet. I have seen genuine swords six feet in length. They on on display in the tower of London. True, they may not have been used a great deal but they definately existed. Just imagine getting hit by it... It would be used more like an axe than a sword, IMO.
Vahenir 06-15-05, 07:06 AM	It would be used more like an axe than a sword, IMO. No. Swords are used like swords. If it was used like an axe - it wouldn't be a sword - they would have just made axes. There are some -really- big swords, historically. But keep in mind that many over-large swords were what's called 'Bearing Swords.' They were ceremonial, not functional.
Keenath 06-15-05, 09:40 AM	Oh.. and on the subject of inferior armour types - I regularly have my characters wearing 'chainmail' armour - even though it's technically one of the most inferior armour styles you can get. It's just personal preference, though.Every time I see a player in "chain-mail" armor, I want to run behind them clapping coconut halves together. ;)
Keenath 06-15-05, 09:59 AM	There are some -really- big swords, historically. But keep in mind that many over-large swords were what's called 'Bearing Swords.' They were ceremonial, not functional.Right. Like I said, they look impressive over the mantle (or, yes, being held by the official Impressive Looking Sword Holder), but they're impractical in combat. Even a very large sword like a zweihander (a type of German greatsword) would have a blade no more than perhaps 3 and a half feet long. And then, the first 8 inches of blade were often blunted (forward of the guards) to allow a fighter to get a better angle on the long blade. Anything bigger was just ceremonial. By the way, on the subject of sword weight -- even a 15 pound sword would be huge. I mean, we know exactly how much carbon steel weighs. A 15 pound sword 48 inches long (which is, as I said, a ceremonial blade) and two inches wide would end up being .55 inches thick along its entire width. Shaping that into something more sword-shaped, with cutting edges, would make a center that's nearly an inch thick, and would be more of a blunt object than a cutting weapon. A real two-handed sword would only weigh about 8 pounds, and that includes the hilt and guard. A 45 inch blade (about as long as you could get) would end up with 9 inches of hilt just for the counterbalance! The actual blade would end up around 4 lbs, maybe 5. Edit: Notice that the PHB equipment list has this right -- a Greatsword is listed as 8 lbs, while a Greataxe is 12 lbs and the heaviest weapon short of an orc double-axe (which is entirely fantastic). Almost everything of 10 lbs or more is a long hafted weapon.
Tony Vargas 06-15-05, 01:59 PM	It's not semantics. And it's not being nit-picky. Sure it is. I say that with the utmost respect, as someone who genuinely enjoys the treastes you post on such subjects, and has found that information quite useful (as a DM) and enlightening. Oh wow.. you posted the dictionary definition of mail - which is woefully incorrect. Sure, a dictionary isn't a technical source - but it is indicative of actual usage. So, 'mail' is roughly synonymous with 'armor' in english, but in the jargon of the medieval historian it has a more precise meaning. And note that 3E D&D does not have "platemail." It has half-plate (which is described as, apparently, transitional plate, or plate-and-mail) and full plate. Plate-mail is an old 2E term that was removed. Unfortunately, they kept all the other Victorian-errors of using mail incorrectly. Yeah, but a lot of us got really used to 'platemail' in the olden days. And, y'know, those victorian-erra-errors made thier way into the langauge, and into sources that inspired the game. So I don't mind seeing 'scale mail' or 'broadsword' in the game, just like I don't mind seeing it in a Robert E Howard story - in fact, I like seeing such inaccuracies in the game, because the do remind me of Howard and the like. Even so, I really apreciate being informed about the techincally correct terminology.
Vahenir 06-15-05, 06:39 PM	Every time I see a player in "chain-mail" armor, I want to run behind them clapping coconut halves together. Hahaha... I once ran a Monty Python game. It was hilarious. One of the characters got really upset... after his man-servant was killed - he had to 'walk' everywhere instead of 'riding.' Haha. Right. Like I said, they look impressive over the mantle (or, yes, being held by the official Impressive Looking Sword Holder), but they're impractical in combat. Even a very large sword like a zweihander (a type of German greatsword) would have a blade no more than perhaps 3 and a half feet long. And then, the first 8 inches of blade were often blunted (forward of the guards) to allow a fighter to get a better angle on the long blade. Anything bigger was just ceremonial. Quite. But then I don't think I've seen many swords with blades longer than around 48 inches that weren't explicitly named as Bearing Swords. And it would often have been more than the first 8 inches. If the blade didn't have flanges beneath the ricasso - the blade could very well be dull for fully half of its length. Sure it is. I say that with the utmost respect, as someone who genuinely enjoys the treastes you post on such subjects, and has found that information quite useful (as a DM) and enlightening. Well -I- don't consider it nit-picky anymore than I consider wanting people to use proper grammar and spelling as nit-picky. But maybe I'm just a really nit-picky person, heh. Sure, a dictionary isn't a technical source - but it is indicative of actual usage. So, 'mail' is roughly synonymous with 'armor' in english, but in the jargon of the medieval historian it has a more precise meaning. The problem with using dictionaries for subjects like this is that most dictionaries can't even agree. Look through different dictionaries and it becomes quite apparent that they disagree on what constitutes 'mail' in the non-letter sense. Some say only certain forms of armour, some say all armour, some say only 'chainmail' - etc etc. If dictionaries (what are supposed to be authoritive sources) disagree so much, clearly they're not useful reference material. Yeah, but a lot of us got really used to 'platemail' in the olden days. And, y'know, those victorian-erra-errors made thier way into the langauge, and into sources that inspired the game. So I don't mind seeing 'scale mail' or 'broadsword' in the game, just like I don't mind seeing it in a Robert E Howard story - in fact, I like seeing such inaccuracies in the game, because the do remind me of Howard and the like. I hate the term 'broadsword.' It drives me crazy. But to be honest, I -don't- think it was an oversight on Howard's part. I believe he sort of invented his own weapon... something big and dangerous for Conan to kill with. Because if you look at Howard's writing, he uses mostly correct terminology. His weapons are poniards, arming swords, etc. And not a single double-weird-goofy weapon. And his armour - mail shirts, mail hauberks, scale corselets, etc. I don't think I've ever seen him mis-use a term besides 'broadsword' as mentioned. So I highly doubt Howard was the inspiration for D&D weapons and armour - since he actually used the correct terms. (By the way, the d20 Conan RPG by Mongoose - awesome.) I also do feel it necessary to point out that in none of my posts am I trying to be **** or a term-dictator. Anyone is free to use any term they want. If someone wants to call plate armour - scale, because it's made of 'scales of plates' - then fine. But I do feel the need, whenever possible, to reinforce the correct definitions and usage. Not sure why. Maybe I really am wicked nit-picky.
Tony Vargas 06-15-05, 07:21 PM	If someone wants to call plate armour - scale, because it's made of 'scales of plates' - then fine. Nah, it's 'scale' because it weighs the same on the right side as the left - the only truely 'balanced' armor. :rimshot: (Did I mention I'm running on 3hrs sleep and 3 cups of cofee today...?) :whatsthis
Vahenir 06-15-05, 07:24 PM	:heehee
Eliza_Stormwhisper 06-15-05, 08:34 PM	At what point is a short sword a short sword and not a 'knife' or 'dagger' or 'long sword'. What's the happy length that makes a short sword? A knife is a single-edged weapon that does 1-3 points of damage. A dagger is a double-edged weapon that does 1-4 points of damage. A short sword is a a pointed sword that does 1-6 points of damage. A long sword is a sword that does 1-8 points of damage. That's all you need to know. Trying to compare D&D to historical examples is absurd.
Nephlite 06-15-05, 08:40 PM	A knife is a single-edged weapon that does 1-3 points of damage. A dagger is a double-edged weapon that does 1-4 points of damage. A short sword is a a pointed sword that does 1-6 points of damage. A long sword is a sword that does 1-8 points of damage. That's all you need to know. Trying to compare D&D to historical examples is absurd. Wait, what are the stats of a knife? Do knifes get peircing and slashing like a dagger? Are they cheaper? Do Knifes get a bonus on anything special?
Vahenir 06-15-05, 08:58 PM	In 2E - a knife was separate from a dagger (1d3 compared to 1d4). 3E no longer carries any distinction between the two - a knife, essentially, is a dagger - they're the same basic weapon. A very short-bladed, cut-and-thrust style weapon designed to be used in very close-quarters, or as a back-up should a main weapon be lost. There is no noteworthy difference between the two weapons, so 3E designers clearly decided not to make an arbitrary difference. That's all you need to know. Trying to compare D&D to historical examples is absurd. I strongly disagree. Without using examples of things from the real world, the game becomes absurd, actually. What is a longsword? History will tell us. Otherwise, you're playing GURPS - where basically any one-hand weapon of a certain size deals the exact same damage. That's why the weapons have names. Saying that comparing them to real life items is, in and of itself, an absurd proposition. Why would they even give them names if we weren't intended to get a basic idea of what historical weapon they're talking about? They could just as easily have called the longsword "Medium Sword" if they wanted everything to be painfully obscure, or even better "Bladed Weapon" or "Medium Weapon." This is supported by the fact that in BOTH editions of the Arms & Equipment Guide (3E and 2E), WotC and TSR (respectively) gave equivalents to historical items, - 3E had its Weapon Equivalencies chart, and 2E had strong descriptive text. So both TSR and WotC disagree with you - that using Historical examples is absurd.
Keenath 06-15-05, 09:22 PM	Hahaha... I once ran a Monty Python game. It was hilarious. One of the characters got really upset... after his man-servant was killed - he had to 'walk' everywhere instead of 'riding.' Haha.This is the funniest thing I've read all day. Thanks! :rofl: And it would often have been more than the first 8 inches. If the blade didn't have flanges beneath the ricasso - the blade could very well be dull for fully half of its length.In general, yes; I was referring specifically to zweihanders, which do have flanges and a relatively short blunted section. (I used to know the name for the blunt part of the blade, but it escapes me now. It's something like 'wall' or 'reinforcement', because a lot of swords had sort of bronze casing there to improve the sword's strength, or something. Well -I- don't consider it nit-picky anymore than I consider wanting people to use proper grammar and spelling as nit-picky. But maybe I'm just a really nit-picky person, heh.I agree with your point of veiw on this. I don't consider myself nitpicky, but consciously using the wrong word when you know the right one is irritating to me. I mean, I don't think any less of somebody who can't tell scale armor from brigandine at ten paces, but if somebody explains the correct term, it seems bullheaded and foolish to continue using the wrong word. (By the way, if anyone cares, the difference is scale armor (or 'lamellar') has small, overlaping scales of metal on a leather backing, while brigandine uses larger scales -- plates, really -- that don't overlap.) That applies to all of life, really -- its' a philosopy. I'm an engineer, so I like things to be correct even if nobody would ever know the difference. 3E no longer carries any distinction between the two - a knife, essentially, is a dagger - they're the same basic weapon.All short bladed weapons that are made for combat are daggers, yes. Knife often refers to weapons not made for combat, though -- a kitchen knife isn't shaped for jabbing and has too flexible a blade for combat. It would still deal 1d4 damage, but at a -4 to hit (improvised dagger). A clever would be an improvised hand-axe, and so on.
Vahenir 06-15-05, 09:42 PM	In general, yes; I was referring specifically to zweihanders, which do have flanges and a relatively short blunted section. (I used to know the name for the blunt part of the blade, but it escapes me now. It's something like 'wall' or 'reinforcement', because a lot of swords had sort of bronze casing there to improve the sword's strength, or something. Specific kinds, yes. But zweihander only means "two-hand." It applies to any two-hand sword. Only certain types of two-handers had flanges. And the blunted section of a sword is called the ricasso. (By the way, if anyone cares, the difference is scale armor (or 'lamellar') has small, overlaping scales of metal on a leather backing, while brigandine uses larger scales -- plates, really -- that don't overlap.) There's one more important difference which separates lamellar from both a coat-of-plates, and scale armour : Lamellar plates are often connected to one another, rather than being riveted or sewn to a backing individually. All short bladed weapons that are made for combat are daggers, yes. Knife often refers to weapons not made for combat, though -- a kitchen knife isn't shaped for jabbing and has too flexible a blade for combat. It would still deal 1d4 damage, but at a -4 to hit (improvised dagger). A clever would be an improvised hand-axe, and so on. I know what you're saying - but really the term "knife" is just as applicable as 'dagger' - and there are examples of the terms being used interchangably throughout history. You can call your dagger a knife if you want, they're the same thing provided they're both items made for war. Likewise, you could just as easily have a dagger made for killing pigs, in which case it's not war-worthy. Suffice to say, the terms dagger and knife are pretty much interchangable and really don't matter - and that's the reason the 'knife' is no longer a separate weapon.
WaterRabbit 06-15-05, 10:18 PM	The Greeks had runners that would run many miles to deliver massages. They would be wearing full gear which was well over a 100 pounds. The shield alone was in the 70 pound area. I guess men just are not as manly now days. Please site a reliable source for this. Otherwise this is just bs. How long would it take them to run many miles? How many miles exactly? Show me anyone that can 'run' with a shield strapped to their arm -- especially a 70 lbs one. Let's be a little realistic here. And no their shield did not weigh 70 lbs. The entire gear of a Hoplite was in the neighborhood of 50-70 lbs. You might be thinking of the Hoplite race which was approximately 400 meters which was originally run in full armor. However, by the 5th century BC the runners would only have a helmet and shield to symbolize the full armor.
kam_Islash 06-15-05, 10:21 PM	Nobody would ever wear a meat fullplate. Except maybe Homer Simpson. ///
Vahenir 06-15-05, 10:41 PM	Why not? What's better than a fully protective armour that you can eat if you get hungry? Haha.
Max of Mulligans 06-15-05, 11:13 PM	I just have to say, thanks for all the info and reading suggestions, Vahenir. I always feel it makes my gaming much more flavorful and solid when I actually understand some of the details instead of just reading lines off a table.
Eliza_Stormwhisper 06-16-05, 01:57 AM	In 2E - a knife was separate from a dagger (1d3 compared to 1d4). 3E no longer carries any distinction between the two - a knife, essentially, is a dagger - they're the same basic weapon. A very short-bladed, cut-and-thrust style weapon designed to be used in very close-quarters, or as a back-up should a main weapon be lost. There is no noteworthy difference between the two weapons, so 3E designers clearly decided not to make an arbitrary difference. I strongly disagree. Without using examples of things from the real world, the game becomes absurd, actually. What is a longsword? History will tell us. Otherwise, you're playing GURPS - where basically any one-hand weapon of a certain size deals the exact same damage. That's why the weapons have names. Saying that comparing them to real life items is, in and of itself, an absurd proposition. Why would they even give them names if we weren't intended to get a basic idea of what historical weapon they're talking about? They could just as easily have called the longsword "Medium Sword" if they wanted everything to be painfully obscure, or even better "Bladed Weapon" or "Medium Weapon." This is supported by the fact that in BOTH editions of the Arms & Equipment Guide (3E and 2E), WotC and TSR (respectively) gave equivalents to historical items, - 3E had its Weapon Equivalencies chart, and 2E had strong descriptive text. So both TSR and WotC disagree with you - that using Historical examples is absurd. AD&D 1st edition Dungeon Master's Guide, page 9: "[The game] does not stress any realism (in the author's opinion an absurd effort at best considering the topic!)...This is not to say that where it doesn't interrupt the flow of play the highest degree of realism hasn't been attempted...In all cases, the reader should understand the game is designed to be an amusing and diverting pastime which can fill a few hours or consume endless days, as the participants desire, but in no case something to be taken too seriously...As a realistic simulation of things from the realm of make-believe, or even as a reflection of medieval or ancient warfare or culture or society, it can only be deemed a dismal failure." (emphasis mine) Gary Gygax agrees with me.
Eliza_Stormwhisper 06-16-05, 01:59 AM	Suffice to say, the terms dagger and knife are pretty much interchangable and really don't matter - and that's the reason the 'knife' is no longer a separate weapon. In my campaigns, knives are single-edged while daggers are double-edged.
Vahenir 06-16-05, 02:25 AM	Gary Gygax agrees with me. I've seen Gary Gygax's posts on ENWorld, and to be perfectly honest - he doesn't impress me. I respect his efforts to the gaming community - but I've found his demeanor to be short-sighted and often extremely biased. Also note in your quotation that not only is he speaking from personal opinion - but there is a contradiction in terms: "[The game] does not stress any realism" "This is not to say that where it doesn't interrupt the flow of play the highest degree of realism hasn't been attempted..." Okay, maybe it's not a contradiction. Maybe you just didn't understand what he was saying. The first line is that the game does not STRESS realism. Fine. Noted. No one here is suggesting otherwise. I've yet to see anyone here suggest that D&D is expected to be realistic in every possible way. No game can boast that- even those games that are more realistic than D&D - such as GURPS or possibly Tristatdx. But note the second quotation. Where it DOES NOT INTERRUPT THE FLOW OF PLAY, the highest degree of realism has been attempted. Now.. please tell me, where exactly does equating D&D weapons to their real-world counterparts interrupt the flow of play? Better yet - go to the ENWorld boards and ask Gary yourself where his weapon and armour influences came from. He may tell you HISTORY. Maybe not. Maybe he'll tell you they came from Pulp Sword & Sorcery stories of his era, like Conan - in which case those very things are directly taken from History. In either event, his inspiration for weapons and armour can only have come from history. Unless you propose there's somewhere other than our own history from which the concept of swords is derived? I suggest you should have read that paragraph a bit more closely before providing it as evidence to your opinion - as it quite clearly contradicts your opinion and supports my own. "or even as a reflection of medieval or ancient warfare or culture or society, it can only be deemed a dismal failure." Quite. You could not, without changes (which 3E has made) accurately reflect largescale warfare with D&D. Nor does D&D well-reflect what society and culture were like during the time. No one, again, has suggested otherwise. But we're not talking about warfare and all that it entails, we're talking about specific equipment. So unless you can show me where Gary states that the equipment in 1st Edition D&D (which I will remind you is not 3rd Edition D&D - the edition we're all speaking of) was not based off of any historical concept, or off of any fantasy concept which was based on history. I seem to recall Gary being strongly influenced by Robert E. Howard - the writer of Conan. And of course, Conan stories were entirely based on our world's history - warped according to Howard's needs and desires as a writer and creator. So, you've inadvertently supported everything I said - though perhaps you hadn't intended to. But hey, them's the brakes, right? In my campaigns, knives are single-edged while daggers are double-edged. That's a fine interpretation. But regardless of what edition of D&D you play, it -is- an arbitrary difference. Perhaps longswords that are single-edged (of which I can think of a few styles) should have different stats as well? What about single-edged shortswords? Different stats for them as well? Why? What does the amount of edges on a weapon have to do with its statistics? There is no difference. A 38 inch sword that weighs 3 pounds and has two edges is statistically, for the sake of a roleplaying game, identical to a 38 inch sword that weights 3 pounds and has one edge. It's your game, of course. And your concept of a knife and dagger being separate weapons is well-supported throughout earlier editions of the game. Run it as you see fit. But in my opinion - the difference is so painfully arbitrary as to not be necessary, and I believe that's why the difference was considered voided for the 3rd Edition release of the game. I just have to say, thanks for all the info and reading suggestions, Vahenir. I always feel it makes my gaming much more flavorful and solid when I actually understand some of the details instead of just reading lines off a table. My pleasure, and glad to help in any way. In my opinion, history is brimming with amazing concepts, ideas, and 'adventure hooks.' A gamer that ignores history is doing himself a great disservice. Our history is wonderous - and every early fantasy story is based in our own history's events and mythologies. I do not believe in separating this game from its foundations in lore and mythology. But that's just me. Others are free to feel differently, and I bear them no especial ill will for that.
Keenath 06-16-05, 08:38 AM	I hate the term 'broadsword.' It drives me crazy. But to be honest, I -don't- think it was an oversight on Howard's part. I believe he sort of invented his own weapon... something big and dangerous for Conan to kill with. Because if you look at Howard's writing, he uses mostly correct terminology. His weapons are poniards, arming swords, etc. And not a single double-weird-goofy weapon. And his armour - mail shirts, mail hauberks, scale corselets, etc. I don't think I've ever seen him mis-use a term besides 'broadsword' as mentioned.My brother brought this up when I mentioned this to him, and I didn't have an answer. What about the scottish (or sometimes Glasgow) "basket-hilt broadsword" that you hear about a lot? Is that a misnomer, and if so, what's the accurate name? From what I can tell, it's distinguished from a basket-hilt backsword by having two sharp edges as opposed to the backsword's one. By the way, speaking of which, in MY campaign, daggers have three sharp edges. ;)
Vahenir 06-16-05, 06:08 PM	My brother brought this up when I mentioned this to him, and I didn't have an answer. What about the scottish (or sometimes Glasgow) "basket-hilt broadsword" that you hear about a lot? Is that a misnomer, and if so, what's the accurate name? From what I can tell, it's distinguished from a basket-hilt backsword by having two sharp edges as opposed to the backsword's one. The correct term would be "sword." Or "arming sword." Or "basket-hilted arming sword." Or "claymore." (The term claymore originally applied to "basket-hilted broadswords" of Scottish design - it was eventually expanded to encompass the famous two-handers.) You see, the term broadsword was invented during the era of Rapiers and Smallswords. These were extremely thin swords - so people began referring to the thicker swords of military use as "broadswords." Why? Because they were broader than the civilian swords of the day. So keep in mind that there is no -style- that is a broadsword. All swords that aren't slim like a smallsword are technically broadswords. It's a misnomer. Here's a great article on the misuse of the term "broadsword" : Broadsword or Broad Sword (http://www.thearma.org/essays/broadsword.htm) By the way, speaking of which, in MY campaign, daggers have three sharp edges. I tried to visualize that and almost had a stroke. Thanks a lot.
Keenath 06-16-05, 06:53 PM	So, you figure Conan's sword was called a broadsword, with the knowledge that it was a misnomer, just so he didn't have to specify any particular weapon? Not a term the author invented, but one he borrowed even though it would probably be misinterpreted?
Vahenir 06-16-05, 07:14 PM	So, you figure Conan's sword was called a broadsword, with the knowledge that it was a misnomer, just so he didn't have to specify any particular weapon? Not a term the author invented, but one he borrowed even though it would probably be misinterpreted? I wouldn't dare speak FOR Howard. But my presumption has always been that he wanted something that -sounded- big and dangerous. And let's face it, "broadsword" sounds more intimidating than "arming sword." It sounds meaner and bigger. And that's exactly what it is - according to Howard. I think he borrowed a term that was -already- being misapplied in order to create a specific weapon. Rather than attempting to, every time there was a weapon mentioned, define exactly what the arming sword looks like - it was easier to rename it. I mean, it's easier to just say "broadsword" which already invokes images of its own, rather than say "his arming sword was wide and long, heavier than many..." etc.
jaerad 06-17-05, 04:00 AM	By the way, speaking of which, in MY campaign, daggers have three sharp edges. I tried to visualize that and almost had a stroke. Thanks a lot. I think what he's talking about are those lame fantasy daggers that look like a pyramid with the sides concave. If you were to stab something you'd leave a hole that looks like a Y (except with equal interior angles). See, it would have 3 edges - 6 sides. Tapers to a point... Come on, you haven't seen those things? Go rent the Shadow, the dagger that crawls around and hisses at people has that kinda blade. Disclaimer, watching the Shadow will have a negative effect on all aspects of your life.
Vahenir 06-17-05, 06:48 AM	I don't think he was talking about anything - I do believe he was just being an ass. :P And yeah, I remember that dagger from The Shadow, now. That was incredibly lame. Although I did enjoy the movie - I think I might still have some tapes of the old radio show it was based on. Oh well.
Keenath 06-17-05, 08:12 AM	Um, yes, I was just joking. A dagger with three edges may look nifty, but it's absolutely useless for actual fighting. Though it does remind me of a great quote from Babylon 5: "The truth is a three edged sword." - Ambassador Kosh
Krelios 06-17-05, 08:46 AM	A very valid point. Furthermore keep in mind Usuary laws. Until the late 16th Century (when firearm technology made plate armour obsolete) it was illegal for someone not of noble birth or knighted to wear full plate armour. Even in the 1800's in Germany it was illegal for persons of lower social rank, again equal to at least a knight in social rank, to wear silk. As flavour in a campaign I introduced these laws into a game I DM'd.Usuary (typically spelled, Usury)? That has to do with the lending of money, and has nothing to do with wearing armor. I agree with everything you said after that second sentence though...
Forged_Fury 06-17-05, 08:56 AM	While the history lesson here is well worth it, how real is too real? 1st Edition AD&D was likely far more realistic in the terms of weapons and armor than 2nd, 3.0, or 3.5 has been. Does anyone remember the huge table in the equipment section of the Player's Handbook that detailed the bonuses and penalties to hit the different types of armor compared to the weapon used in the attack? Back then, chainmail was far more effective against slashing weapons than it was against piercing weapons. Banded worked better against piercing weapons than against slashing weapons. It was (likely) far more realistic than what we see in later editions... but it sucked. Combat was annoying and lengthy when using that system. Another realism piece: Weapon Speed/Speed Factor. While it was annoying to factor in, it was pretty realistic. I think it would seem obvious that, given roughly equal reflexes, the guy with the dagger is probably going to get the chance to at least swing his weapon before the guy with the greataxe. Did it add anything to the game? Not really, other than practically guaranteeing that the Thief (1st Edition) would go first in a round. Anyway, just my thoughts. Good reading though... -Forged Fury
Nephlite 06-17-05, 11:46 AM	Knife, I'll say the range to throw is better: Dagger 1 gp 1d2 1d3 19–20/x2, 20 ft. 1/2 lb. Piercing or slashing Why not giver the unused Armor Dr1/-: that doesn't stack with Dr from other sources. Though, it might make them used too much.
Chazmon 06-17-05, 12:20 PM	talking about damage it doesnt matter what dice you roll it isnt going to be realistic as people dont take numbers bleeding they suffer internal haemoraging and DIE! DnD isnt realistic but its great. Also bladed weapons come in all forms a friend of mine recently produced a machette he had bought in Africa (how he got it through customs i dont know) that was over a meter long! Generalisation is the only way. As for silly double weaopns who cares just think how cool it would look to weild a double axe there would be blades everywhere. DnD is about realising fantisy in an uncomplicated way which alows for differences and flexibility without hours spent on every battle. This argument can be used on all the main arguments including the nature of magic, called shot/criticals and general realism
WhiteHarness 06-17-05, 01:09 PM	Where in history is there precedent for it being lillegal for anyone other than somebody of knightly/noble birth to wear full plate? I can't find any reference to this sort of thing in the sumptuary laws of any medieval or renaissance nation. If anything, rulers would have preferred that their troops have better armour than they usually showed up to musters wearing. IIRC, the some Ordinances laid down by Charles the Bold in the 1470's (just as a for instance) actually state that if the individual troops (or their employers) could afford better gear than the minimum required for their respective positions, then they should by all means acquire it and show up in it. Failure to turn up at a muster in the required war-gear made you subject to a fine. I don't think it was ever illegal anywhere in Western Europe to own and wear full plate armour.
Vahenir 06-17-05, 05:40 PM	Forged Fury: I agree with you, but there are some things you failed to consider in your thought: Other "realistic" systems like DR vs. Armour Piercing found in the Conan d20 game by Mongoose. It's very realistic, it DOES take into account that some weapons were better against some armour, etc. It's MORE realistic than the old weapon vs. armour tables - but it's also 1000 times simpler. Also, the whole Weapon Speed thing was unrealistic anyway - as it ran off of fundamentally incorrect ideals about the "slowness" of large weaponry. But as for the actual question that was brought up: It's too much realism when it impairs the enjoyment of the game. With that said - There are a lot of ways to make D&D more realistic without impairing enjoyment of the game (depending, as with anything, on your group).