Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Shadowdragon 09-28-06, 04:54 PM	It's a fact that some armour protects against some types of damage better than others. On it's own chainmail offers the best protection against slashing attacks, a little protection against bludgeoning attacks, and basically no protection against piercing attacks. I remember seeing somewhere a list of armour that had ACs based on the weapon that was hitting it. I can't remember if it was for 3.5 but it was for D&D. Does such a list exist or am I just imagining things? If it does exist does anyone know where I can find it? If it doesn't exist can someone come up with a list of AC modifiers for attacking weapon type?
starfire311 09-28-06, 05:14 PM	ok this may seem needlessly complicated(much like the old variant for armor vs types), but this is just off the top of my head. in my game we use armor as DR, and I advocate it. how about something like this Chain mail provides DR 5/piercing or bludgeoning DR 3/piercing DR 1/- another option could be Chain Mail grants AC 3 it is strong vs slashing and weak vs piercing strong provides a +2 AC Weak provides a -2 AC so you just need to remember if the armor is strong/weak vs the attack.
theotherdraxen 09-28-06, 05:25 PM	On it's own chainmail offers the best protection against slashing attacks, a little protection against bludgeoning attacks, and basically no protection against piercing attacks. Not true (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chainmail). While it seems like arrows would shoot straight through chainmail, it actually makes a formidable defense. In history, archers would frequently wear chainmail, and they were involved in the skirmish tactics. Then, the infatry would move in with banded mail (or other kind of plate-style armor) and fight in close quarters. Though I suppose your above statement is just an example (and who knows how reliable Wiki is anyway?). The only system I came up with is one using armor as DR. Chain might have DR: 2/- and 4/bludgeoning. That way, even if you have to face an enemy in Chain while he's wielding a mace, you're not totally helpless, but if he's wielding a long sword, then you'll kick his :censored:.
058 09-28-06, 07:13 PM	Chainmail was developed as a defence against arrows--the heads wouldn't be able to penetrate the rings, so the only ill effect on the wearer would be the kinetic impact. However, once archers began using narrow-tipped arrows, this advantage was destroyed and chainmail lost all effectiveness as an archer-defence. I suppose this means that Wiki is half-accurate on this one. :)
Shadowdragon 09-29-06, 01:33 PM	Strange. Every historical and rpg reference I've seen that talks about attacks vs. armour says that the only way to make chain armour effective against things like arrows was to wear it over cloth, padded, or leather armour. The chain itself was virtually useless against piercing attacks (except for very specialised armour like double-chain and chain augmented with leather straps, but even they were only slightly better), the protection from piercing attacks came from what was worn underneath. Chain was slightly better against bludgeoning attacks, but again, only if worn over something else. In fact, chain worn without any kind of backing made bludgeoning attacks do MORE damage (the chain links would tear at the flesh underneath when struck by a blunt object). But I was just using chain as an example. All armour types were more effective against some attacks and less effective against others. I'm sure there was something about how to adjust armour based on what was being used to attack it, but I can't seem to remember where I saw it.
True Cavalier 09-29-06, 01:51 PM	I have something like that, from 2nd edition, on my site. Armor vs Weapon Types (http://firkraag.wordpress.com/2006/09/11/armor-vs-weapon-types/) Think you might like it.
fatal error 09-29-06, 02:08 PM	I would think it could work something like this: Slashing, works best against unarmed, worst again armored. This probably should not include axes, but only swords, as axes, I would think, would be as effective as a mace against heavier armors it couldn't penetrate, where as swords would not. Bludgeoning is the consistant one. Probably the worst damage of all against light armor, but stays the same all the way up to heavy armors, since it's still crushing bones. Piercing is a tricky one. Rapiers I wouldn't think would do much against full plate, but a solid spear thrust seems like it might be the most effective weapon against heavy armors. And picks are also anti-armor weapons, so maybe seperate into light piercing and heavy piercing. Both of these, I would think, would be better than slashing at chainmail, as they could split links, right? Don't forget swords can be thrust. Note; all of this relies on logical thinking, none of it is actual practical experiance or such.
058 09-29-06, 04:50 PM	Dunno...rapiers(those attuned to thrusts, or any design of one that is thrusted) are well-made for extremely accurate attacks, which would be very good against plate: A successful hit is easier to make because of its design, as compared to any other weapon of similar weight and hitting power, with the added bonus of any successful hit against an enemy wearing full plate being on a vulnerable joint. I think this is the reason for a rapier's increased crit range(still not sure about why scimitars have one); perhaps, in a weapon-vs-armour-AC system, a cricital hit from something like a rapier doesn't suffer from whatever penalties a normal hit would against heavy armour. As for axes, the battlefield variety was designed entirely for penetrating heavy armour that swords had difficulty with, so they would be shining against platemail. Slashing with a sword may not be as likely to penetrate armour as a thrust, but it can definitely prove deadly--after all, HP isn't only how much you can get hit, but the ability to turn away otherwise-deadly blows, and deflecting a powerful slash could certainly take some of that out. Blunt weapons would do less damage to padded armour, because the padding reduces the impact. Perhaps platemail stuffed with rags or other padding would prove more effective, too--maybe this could be a modification that players could make, stuffing their heavier armour with padding to lessen blunt damage, but perhaps decreasing their max dex bonus and having to carry the extra weight. As said, chainmail is only effective against large-headed arrows(so pretty much any stone-headed arrow and other older metal-tipped ones) as they can't get through the links, but against a thin-tipped missile it is virtually useless.
X-Codes 09-29-06, 05:52 PM	The problems I foresee is when dual-type weapons come into play like the Morningstar or Scythe or even natural weapons like claw and bite attacks. Theres even the problem that different weapons, even of the same type, do damage differently. Claws and teeth on a suit of Platemail do little if anything. Hit it with a Longbow, however, and the Arrow punches right through it. I'm not saying this is a bad idea, I'm just thinking you might be using the wrong parameters.
058 09-29-06, 10:36 PM	An arrow actually would have a rather hard time piercing through platemail--that's one of the reasons it was used so much. Even early guns could only penetrate at extremely close ranges. A bite would crush the armour, which would not only do damage but leave the armour compressed around the wound, inhibitting the movement of the victim.
X-Codes 09-30-06, 01:49 AM	An arrow actually would have a rather hard time piercing through platemail--that's one of the reasons it was used so much. Even early guns could only penetrate at extremely close ranges. A bite would crush the armour, which would not only do damage but leave the armour compressed around the wound, inhibitting the movement of the victim. Early guns didn't have penetrating power because the ammunition was a rather heavy, round ball, and even then had a hard time hitting, let alone penetrating, at long range. Meanwhile a trained British Longbowman could put more power on a tiny point from a further distance with greater accuracy. It took a few centuries after the original invention of firearms to bring their power up to par with the longbow. At the time of their conception, firearms were used because they didn't require much time or training at all to make and use, greatly increasing the power of a common, hardly-trained foot soldier that made up the meat of virtually all armies in world history. Finally, I could see a bite from a Crocodile or some such creature puncture armor, but not your average dog or wolf. Again, I don't think Bludgeoning/Piercing/Slashing is the right way to break this down if you want to heighen the realism of your game.
Rhialto 09-30-06, 05:44 AM	An arrow actually would have a rather hard time piercing through platemail--that's one of the reasons it was used so much... Tell that to the French knights at Agincourt. More than one of them got shot through the leg, his entire horse, and his other leg, pinning him to the (soon to be) dead horse. ---- For those interested in a more physics based approach, the single most critical factor for penetration is energy per unit area. Which in layman's terms means pointy things penetrate better than slashy things, which penetrate better than clubby things. The second critical factor for penetration is whether the weapon is fine enough to pass through the gaps of the armour. The third critical factor is whether body part X is covered by the armour.
True Cavalier 09-30-06, 06:01 AM	It depends on the arrow's tip On the bow used to fire it On the armor worn On the part of the armor that was hit And to go further, it also depends on the velocity of the arrow, the firing arc, its weight, etc etc. In such things one can go mad trying to figure rules for everything. Can't go all the way to perfect realism. In the end, that is what attack rolls are for - some attacks are better aimed than others, for example. There is no hard and fast rule when you have so many variables (Even a full plate has weak spots). When 200 archers are shooting at you, some of them will roll critical hits, and pierce your leg, and the horse. Also, on such examples, you need to consider the validity of the sources. Winners write history all too often, and the French did not lose in Agincourt because Longbows were penetrating their armors like modern-day sniper rifles, but because of a variety of other factors (eg the ground, morale, bad coordination, etc). For me, there are only two approaches. 1. Ignore it completely, the rules work as they are. 2. Make a simple chart with AC and/or DR modifiers for the different weapon types, which, more importantly than realism (you can't get that perfect anyway!) has the benefit of allowing more complex weapon-strategies and may interest players that choose to go for a flail instead of the typical longsword. Gameplay above realism, right? Edit/PS: I think it can generally can be agreed upon that most of the heavier armors would be bad against blunt weapons. Chainmail is just too flexible to protect well, and remember that flails/maces were developed primarily in the late middle-ages to bash around those knights whose armor you just couldn't penetrate.
Shadowdragon 09-30-06, 03:59 PM	Hmm, that idea of putting the AC (or DR) modifiers on the weapons instead of the armour sounds like it might be the better way to go. I'll have to see how many weapons of the same type are better/worse against different armour types. If it's only one or two then maybe it would just be better to put the modifiers on the armour and have a few weapons with special armour piercing rules.
Rhialto 09-30-06, 06:04 PM	hmm, how about this... Each armour gets a DR (damage reduction) stat. This is generally what it's AC bonus would hae been in vanilla D20. Each weapon gets a penetration stat. Penetration is the amount of DR that is countered by the weapon. Typical values are: gunpowder bullets - 4 pointy damage - 2 slashy damage - 1 clubby damage - 0 (Individual weapons may have penetration values higher or lower, these are only examples for illustration) That covers the basic physics side of the rules. It doesn't cover the special cases we've discussed so far (arrows blocked by chain or not, and flails/maces and concussion damage). More seriously, it makes the spear (et alii) the weapon of choice, which doesn't really tie in with heroic fantasy. Of course, a physics based approach would also contemplate the weapon's mass and how big an arc you can swing the weapon in when attacking. That procedure would greatly favour swods and axes over spears. It's also a lot of hard maths that I am too lazy to figure. I suspect the basic damage numbers are an amalgam of the penetration and weapon_mass - swing_arc factors, and as such would need complete reworking if penetration is to be done objectively. Instead of doing a lot of boring maths, it'd be simpler instead to assume that any weapon that is swung in an arc goes up a category for damage dice (ie the wielder's size class os treated as one higher), and stab mode only melee weapons get put down a size class. Melee weapons that don't make use of strength directly (such as the flail, which builds a store of energy by spinning it) should probably be upped a size category too. I think that's all bases covered.
True Cavalier 09-30-06, 06:18 PM	I think AC modification would be more appropriate than DR for multiple reasons, most importantly because they add in the randomness of combat that already caters to much of the randomness of war. Whether, for example, the thin rapier will go through the opening in the full plate, or just hit sidely on the chest and be 100% deflected.
Shadowdragon 09-30-06, 06:55 PM	As for axes, the battlefield variety was designed entirely for penetrating heavy armour that swords had difficulty with, so they would be shining against platemail. Maybe there could be a fourth damage type: chopping. Swords and axes are very different weapons used for very different purposes. Try cutting a full-size tree down with a sword for example. Swords were meant to be slashed across the body, while axes were meant to penetrate into the body. An axe isn't exactly a piercing weapon, but it's also not exactly a slashing weapon.
Rhialto 09-30-06, 07:24 PM	Maybe there could be a fourth damage type: chopping. Swords and axes are very different weapons used for very different purposes. Try cutting a full-size tree down with a sword for example. Swords were meant to be slashed across the body, while axes were meant to penetrate into the body. An axe isn't exactly a piercing weapon, but it's also not exactly a slashing weapon. (puts on physics geek hat again) In terms of impact area, swords and axes are about the same. The main diffeene is that the centre of mass in an axe is much farther from the handle in an axe. This has the effect of increasing the amount of momentum in the impact, increasing both energy per unit area and total impact energy (/physics) Could resolve this as either giving axes an extra size class adjustment on top of the one I added for swung weapons (so a restat axe weapons so a human under the modded version does damage as a huge creature in vanilla). Shifting that more than once probably results in some unbalancing that I don't care to analyse too deeply. Maybe just up the penetration value by 1 instead?
Shadowdragon 10-02-06, 04:42 AM	Maybe the weapon vs. armour modifiers should go on the armour and just give certain weapons an armour penetration value. Since axes were designed to cut through all types of armour it would have a universal AP value. Arrows and other small piercing weapons could have an AP value that applies to chainmail-style armour. Things like that.
True Cavalier 10-02-06, 08:16 AM	Axes were designed to cut through all types of armor? I doubt it, axes are one of the oldest weapons in existence, used long before armor was perfected. And the evolution of axes, is, well, bigger axes. :P
058 10-02-06, 04:45 PM	The difference between saying that "axes are some of the oldest weapons" and what I said is that I used the noun "battleaxes". The battle-axe is a device derrived from your good ol' fashioned wood-choppin' axe, except that it's been spiffed up and such in order to rip through armour. The basic design differences between an axe and a sword mean that you can put more power behind an axe(two hands+long handle=slice) than a sword, increasing penetration power, of course. Battle-axes, as opposed to, say, a hatchet, are built for war, and as such have more advantages than size, such as blade shape and the like.
True Cavalier 10-02-06, 06:12 PM	But the battleaxe is not a late-midieval invention either. Battleaxes were used during ancient times, too. I know wikipedia isn't 100% correct all the time but I'm using it to quickly back up stuff I've read elsewhere. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_axe
058 10-02-06, 08:14 PM	Aye, but most of the axes designed prior to the medieval period were of a different sort; since folk didn't parade about in full platemail(a cuirass and sandals would do for the Greeks), and since the armour was made of bronze and other materials weaker than iron and steel, axes didn't need to be able to penetrate such tough materials--the medieval battle-axe, however, did have that need, and as such was designed to do so.
Rhialto 10-03-06, 03:47 AM	I'm confused here, as I don't see how any medieval battle axe designs could really have been potentially better a penetrating armour that older early iron age designs. Perhaps you could link an image that illustrates this?
058 10-03-06, 07:03 PM	Medieval axes have curved blades(as opposed to hatchets and the like, which tend to be straight), which--I believe--concentrates the force of the swing on a smaller area of the blade upon impact, making penetration easier. Apart from that, a long handle often coated or made of metal with a large metal head tends to have a tad more mass than your average stone or wooden-handled, metal-headed device, also increasing its swinging power. http://members.optusnet.com.au/karen.lee/medieval/images/battle-axe.jpg Also, bronze-axes don't have much in the way of large blades: http://www.ancient-arts.org/hafted%20axe.jpg It seems as though the advancement of the battle-axe has as much to do with the materials used and the amount of said material that could be shaped into something useful as with improvements in armour.
theotherdraxen 10-03-06, 08:59 PM	Maybe I'm just ignorant here, but wouldn't an axe's concentrated force just mean more damage (which would overpower the DR)? I never took physics, and I don't know much about axes or armor, but it just seems like chopping someone in armor is going to deal less damage than chopping someone without armor. Of course, I could be horribly wrong.:embarrass
058 10-03-06, 09:28 PM	Of course someone not wearing armour is going to take more damage than one in; the point I'm making is that an axe with a curved blade-edge will deliver more force upon impact than one without, ensuring a greater chance to slice through the armour.
theotherdraxen 10-03-06, 09:33 PM	Ok. So how about using UA's Armor as DR variant and allowing chopping damage (from axes) to go past the AC bonus but not the DR? You could also put picks in that category (as they were effective at getting past heavy armor). Call it all puncturing damage, maybe?
Rhialto 10-04-06, 04:06 AM	http://members.optusnet.com.au/karen.lee/medieval/images/battle-axe.jpg Also, bronze-axes don't have much in the way of large blades: http://www.ancient-arts.org/hafted%20axe.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labrys That article has a picture of an axe from the 2nd millenium BC. Except for materials, it appears essentially identical to the medieval weapon you showed. The particular example illustrated seems to be ceremonial, judging by the fact that it was gold, but it appears implicit that military versions of a similar design existed.
True Cavalier 10-04-06, 05:33 AM	Imo a greatsword would have just as much chance to slice through armor as an axe. When I said "ancient" I didn't mean bronze axes anyway. :rolleyes: Still I insist that all this is too complicated if you simply want to add some variation to your game.
Rhialto 10-04-06, 09:45 AM	If you meant before the bronze age, that is generally called prehistoric rather than bronze age. ;)
True Cavalier 10-04-06, 09:59 AM	Yeah, I meant iron age up until the dark ages :) Isn't "ancient" everything from after pre-history and till the fall of Rome/founding of the byzantine empire?
058 10-04-06, 04:10 PM	Actually, the second axe I showed was a bronze-headed weapon.
Rhialto 10-04-06, 06:22 PM	Actually, the second axe I showed was a bronze-headed weapon. I knew that!
058 10-04-06, 09:21 PM	That article has a picture of an axe from the 2nd millenium BC. Except for materials, it appears essentially identical to the medieval weapon you showed. The particular example illustrated seems to be ceremonial, judging by the fact that it was gold, but it appears implicit that military versions of a similar design existed. Heh...completely misunderstood that--I thought you were refering to the bronze-headed axe, I do apologize profusely.
Shadowdragon 10-08-06, 02:22 AM	There has been armour of one sort or another for a long time, whether it's crude hides or metal plate. Axes and other weapons that focus the force of an impact onto a small point (spears, arrows, picks, etc) are better at penetrating armour than a sword or similar weapon that spreads the force of the impact over a longer edge. Axes became very popular as weapons (before they were replaced by the more "noble" sword) because they could easily hack off limbs, cause very deep wounds, and punch through armour. Medieval european swords were actually little more than heavy bludgeoning weapons with a sort-of-sharp edge. Now I'm not a historian or anything, but I have done quite a bit of research into weapons for a number of homegrown settings I've made. Maybe this is going into a bit too much detail. Maybe just having weapon vs. armour adjustments to AC is enough without getting into armour penetration for specific weapons or coming up with new damage types.
Rhialto 10-08-06, 02:48 AM	The fact that teh head of an axe is smaller than a sword edge is not really relevant. What matter is teh area of impact. The width of the impact from an axe or sword is essentially the same. The length of the area of impact is also essentially the same. Yes, the sword blade is longer, but except for very oddly shaped targets, the amount of blade involved in an impact is about the same. The real advantage of an axe is that the centre of gravity is farther out from the wielder's body, allowing for a greater amount of momentum at impact. The reason for the initial popularity of the axe over the sword was ease of manufacture. Longswords became noble weapons because of their expense and difficulty of manufacture; they were the original piece of conspicuous consumption.
rydi123 10-09-06, 01:46 AM	instead of creating another category for damage, couldn't you just make some weapons double category weapons? most swords, even primarily slashing ones like the katana and scimitar, can be used as piercing weapons (maybe at a -2). most rapiers can be used as both slashing and piercing. a morningstar would be piercing and bludgeoning. battle axes and greatswords would probably be slashing and bludgeoning.
Illithid_Tentacles 10-11-06, 03:07 PM	I haven't read the whole thread, but I'd have to say: Hell no. Combat, for the most part, takes too damn long already. This would just be another number and variable to keep track of, which would unneccisarily extend the amount of tiime spent in combat.
Patrick Draken-Korin 10-12-06, 12:26 PM	I have read through the thread, and for the most part I agree with Illithid_Tentacles. The most I could see doing would be to incorporate something of the idea that True Cavalier offered a link to on post #6. Several people on the Equipment & Combat board have recently been complaining that armor doesn't have enough variability (with the only real qualifiers being armor and max dex to most people). This could help them out, so I'm going to refer them to this thread; it may be what they've been looking for. But adding yet another stat to weapons? INSANE. If you can make it work, :dancin: :cheer: , but I can't help. I've already got too many complications to mix together before adding one like this. Admittedly I probably will still watch this thread anyway. Insanity deserves observation right?