AC rating

The AC rating for armor is incomplete. Always before you lost dexterity bonuses for wearing heavy armor. But, if rooms in light armor were caught off guard or flanked they also lost dexterity bonuses. We have a problem with a tank in chain mail always having the same AC as a rogue in leather all the time. If someone shots an arrow at a rogue who doesn't see it how can they react to it. If in a hallway fighting two or three monster , you really can't move out of the way of one attack without exposing yourself to the others. Why buy the heavier , slower armor if it doesn't offer better protection all the time without accounting for your reflex.
Because you have a bad Dex stat and still want high AC?
My two copper.
Because you have a bad Dex stat and still want high AC?



This.  Also, because doing otherwise would "unfairly penalize the player for his choice."
There is no "Flat Footed" anymore. Instead, we have advantage/disadvantage to account for situations in which a character is unable to avoid attacks properly.

The only problem is that heavy armor has just as much disadvantage as light and medium, where before the lighter two lost dex bonus and were more severely reduced by being caught off guard or otherwise flat footed.

Could be improved by saying a character in heavy armor negates an attacker's advantage for catching them off guard. It could just be that full plat does that, if they'd be willing to not have every armor of the same type be identical in every way except AC bonus.

I think the armors need some work.
Always before you lost dexterity bonuses for wearing heavy armor.


Not really. The "max dex" thing only appeared in 3e.
(unless some older optional rule existed in a 1e or 2e suplement book that I don't know of)

We have a problem with a tank in chain mail always having the same AC as a rogue in leather all the time.


There are no "tanks" in D&D. There is no "aggro", no character is supposed to hold a monster's attention and get a beating for the others. You can even try to do that by applying some strategy in combat, blocking the way to forbid an enemy to reach others, insult your opponent's mother to see if he keeps beating you instead of someone else, etc... but that'd be a special act of bravery (or foolishness depending on the case), not something assumed by the game to happen in a regular combat.
In a normal situation combat is "kill and survive" for everyone. All characters should worry for their safety, and the Rogue in melee is just as likely to be hit by enemies as the Fighter.



That said, I do feel that Heavy Armors haven't seen much love from 3e onwards.
Although I'm not sure I understand exactly what elements of the armor system you're talking about in your post.


There are no "tanks" in D&D. There is no "aggro", no character is supposed to hold a monster's attention and get a beating for the others. You can even try to do that by applying some strategy in combat, blocking the way to forbid an enemy to reach others, insult your opponent's mother to see if he keeps beating you instead of someone else, etc... but that'd be a special act of bravery (or foolishness depending on the case), not something assumed by the game to happen in a regular combat.
In a normal situation combat is "kill and survive" for everyone. All characters should worry for their safety, and the Rogue in melee is just as likely to be hit by enemies as the Fighter.



If your party has no capacity for teamwork or strategy, maybe. When you decide to get full plate and a tower shield in D&D, it's not for "special acts of bravery," it's your general combat tactic to block doorways and insult your opponent's mother, to protect the weaker party members. I don't know what game you've been playing.

Personally  - I'd like to see the gap between light and medium and heavy armor increased (although probably with greater costs/ penalties for wearing heavy armor). 


But there  are far more players who believe that lightly armored fighters standing toe to toe with heavily armored foes are a necessary trope and must be supported fully by the game.


Thus there is little difference between light armor with a high Dex, medium armor with a +2 Dex and heavy armor.


Carl    


  

     
I think armor could use a revamp tbh. Heavy armor has a lot of advantages in early levels, but once you hit a certain point your AC growth greatly stalls. Where as light/med armor useres can raise their dex and gain other benefits from the stat.
Frankly with melee weapons availiable that run on dex damage now there's really little need for strength. The +1 average damage gained by picking up the heavy version of your weapon doesn't really compensate for the initiative, ac, and save advantage (more spells that hit dex than spells that hit str) of pumping dex. That's not even getting into the fact that dex also runs ranged weapons.

Heavy armor is a trap option and it's gonna stay a trap option until one of two things changes: 1.) They stop giving out AC boosts left and right to classes that don't have armor profs, and making tons of ac boosting spells, items, feats, etc. that don't stack with armor but do stack with each other. 2.) THey give up on armor class as a hit/miss mechanic. They instead apply armor as a damage reduction and make the hit/miss mechanic more liek a save or 4e's static reflex. 

There are no "tanks" in D&D. There is no "aggro", no character is supposed to hold a monster's attention and get a beating for the others. You can even try to do that by applying some strategy in combat, blocking the way to forbid an enemy to reach others, insult your opponent's mother to see if he keeps beating you instead of someone else, etc... but that'd be a special act of bravery (or foolishness depending on the case), not something assumed by the game to happen in a regular combat.
In a normal situation combat is "kill and survive" for everyone. All characters should worry for their safety, and the Rogue in melee is just as likely to be hit by enemies as the Fighter.



If your party has no capacity for teamwork or strategy, maybe. When you decide to get full plate and a tower shield in D&D, it's not for "special acts of bravery," it's your general combat tactic to block doorways and insult your opponent's mother, to protect the weaker party members. I don't know what game you've been playing.




"If your party has no capacity for teamwork or strategy," you need to find a different party.  There's no such thing as a "tank" in D&D; Defenders in 4e were not  there to soak hits, and if you are just soaking hits, something has gone horribly wrong.

THey give up on armor class as a hit/miss mechanic. They instead apply armor as a damage reduction and make the hit/miss mechanic more liek a save or 4e's static reflex. 



This is what needs to be done. 
There is a notable problem with armor as damage reduction. Small weapons like daggers and short swords become pointless against heavy armor when it offers damage reduction. I much prefer armor as attack avoidance, so you might have a very small chance of hitting a weak point in the armor with your dagger, but if you do you will do as much damage as you always do. I also just think it puts too much math in the heat of combat.

It should be a module, like it is in 3.5 and Pathfinder.
Or maybe since any class that really uses weapons gets a damage bonus anyway, the dagger users can just fracking live with not doing a butt load of damage to the guy wrapped up in 50+ pounds of metal.

Unless you hand out a staggering amount of DR, even a dagger user is going to do some damage most of the time and a martial class like rogue or fighter is gonna poke holes in you DR or no, especially isnce the guy in armor is probably easier to hit.

In fact the real issue for DR is scaling with level, as the classes damage and accuracy improve armor becomes less and less potent albeit more slowly than it would now, and when faced with numerous smaller threats the armor still looks like a good deal.

 
AC might need to evolve along with attack
? ^
There is a notable problem with armor as damage reduction. Small weapons like daggers and short swords become pointless against heavy armor when it offers damage reduction. I much prefer armor as attack avoidance, so you might have a very small chance of hitting a weak point in the armor with your dagger, but if you do you will do as much damage as you always do. I also just think it puts too much math in the heat of combat.

It should be a module, like it is in 3.5 and Pathfinder.



Isn't "small weapons like daggers and short swords" not doing well against heavy armor the reason they invented heavy armor?

I suppose you could simulate the classic "knock the knight down, stab him through the eyeslits" by having daggers and short swords ignore DR against prone/restrained/etc. targets.
Race for the Iron Throne - political and historical analysis of A Song of Ice and Fire.


Isn't "small weapons like daggers and short swords" not doing well against heavy armor the reason they invented heavy armor?

I suppose you could simulate the classic "knock the knight down, stab him through the eyeslits" by having daggers and short swords ignore DR against prone/restrained/etc. targets.



Well if we're going to talk about realism, I would suggest that a mace should do more damage against heavy armor than a rapier. A mace is intended to break defenses, after all, and full plate is intended to block light blades. Yet a rapier deals 1d8 to the mace's 1d6, so any case for realism in the weapons and armor doesn't hold much ground.


Isn't "small weapons like daggers and short swords" not doing well against heavy armor the reason they invented heavy armor?

I suppose you could simulate the classic "knock the knight down, stab him through the eyeslits" by having daggers and short swords ignore DR against prone/restrained/etc. targets.



Well if we're going to talk about realism, I would suggest that a mace should do more damage against heavy armor than a rapier. A mace is intended to break defenses, after all, and full plate is intended to block light blades. Yet a rapier deals 1d8 to the mace's 1d6, so any case for realism in the weapons and armor doesn't hold much ground.




it was part of the game they had a weapons type vs armor table that modified weapon damage vs armors


Isn't "small weapons like daggers and short swords" not doing well against heavy armor the reason they invented heavy armor?

I suppose you could simulate the classic "knock the knight down, stab him through the eyeslits" by having daggers and short swords ignore DR against prone/restrained/etc. targets.



Well if we're going to talk about realism, I would suggest that a mace should do more damage against heavy armor than a rapier. A mace is intended to break defenses, after all, and full plate is intended to block light blades. Yet a rapier deals 1d8 to the mace's 1d6, so any case for realism in the weapons and armor doesn't hold much ground.




it was part of the game they had a weapons type vs armor table that modified weapon damage vs armors



Which would be a really great module that I might even use, but I think it's too complicated for the core rules. I'd definitely prefer that over a flat DR based on armor rating.


Isn't "small weapons like daggers and short swords" not doing well against heavy armor the reason they invented heavy armor?

I suppose you could simulate the classic "knock the knight down, stab him through the eyeslits" by having daggers and short swords ignore DR against prone/restrained/etc. targets.



Well if we're going to talk about realism, I would suggest that a mace should do more damage against heavy armor than a rapier. A mace is intended to break defenses, after all, and full plate is intended to block light blades. Yet a rapier deals 1d8 to the mace's 1d6, so any case for realism in the weapons and armor doesn't hold much ground.




it was part of the game they had a weapons type vs armor table that modified weapon damage vs armors



Which would be a really great module that I might even use, but I think it's too complicated for the core rules. I'd definitely prefer that over a flat DR based on armor rating.



i dont like armor damage reduction if there is no way to balance it. all armor is invincable in dnd, in hackmaster armor takes real damage as it stops damage to you and it gets worse in ac as it falls apart making a armorsmith or repair skill person very useful
Some balance suggestions:

- Finesse weapons should be dex bonus to hit, but strength damage.

- Dex should be lost if surprised/flat footed - this might be an optional rule?

- Medium and Heavy armour should allow for some small amount of damage reduction - possibly against slashing or piercing or whatever to further differentiate armours.
Wait why would armor as DR need special balance?

I mean obviously you shouldn't hand out +50 DR or something, but it sounds liek you guys are after something beyond just a reasonable number for the DR. 
Wait why would armor as DR need special balance?

I mean obviously you shouldn't hand out +50 DR or something, but it sounds liek you guys are after something beyond just a reasonable number for the DR. 




because an armor that can constantly reduce damage taken by 3 for instance has to instead of reducing damage absorb it and wear and tear on gear is a good way to balance that. how is there no mechanics for maintaining gear that gives the party the power to fight


Isn't "small weapons like daggers and short swords" not doing well against heavy armor the reason they invented heavy armor?

I suppose you could simulate the classic "knock the knight down, stab him through the eyeslits" by having daggers and short swords ignore DR against prone/restrained/etc. targets.



Well if we're going to talk about realism, I would suggest that a mace should do more damage against heavy armor than a rapier. A mace is intended to break defenses, after all, and full plate is intended to block light blades. Yet a rapier deals 1d8 to the mace's 1d6, so any case for realism in the weapons and armor doesn't hold much ground.



What? No. You cannot break through plate with a mace, Battle of the Trident aside. You use a mace to knock someone down/out, then you stab them in the joints with a knife. Mace is good against chainmail, because it causes internal damage that chainmail isn't designed to protect against.
Race for the Iron Throne - political and historical analysis of A Song of Ice and Fire.
Wait why would armor as DR need special balance?

I mean obviously you shouldn't hand out +50 DR or something, but it sounds liek you guys are after something beyond just a reasonable number for the DR. 



because an armor that can constantly reduce damage taken by 3 for instance has to instead of reducing damage absorb it and wear and tear on gear is a good way to balance that. how is there no mechanics for maintaining gear that gives the party the power to fight



Mongoose's Conan series had a nifty rule on armor damage based on how much over the DR you took. Armor could handle minor dings just fine, but it's the big hits where it starts to get damaged and give less DR unless you get it fixed.
Race for the Iron Throne - political and historical analysis of A Song of Ice and Fire.
Ok no just no, doing armor as Dr does not require some kind of wierd extra balancing factor like maintenance. 

You just have Armors count against the reflex/dodge/whatever stat so wearing full plate provides a hefty DR, but at the cost of making dodging fireballs and axe-blows harder so you end up needing that DR more than you would if you ran around without armor. 
There's not currently variable conditions for when different types of bonuses to AC apply because the playtest is a relatively simple version of the possible rules space. (Not the simplest, but simple.) Right now the game just kind of assumes that you're paying enough attention that your AC can just be, like, a single number. (There's also no distinct touch AC.) The idea that sometimes some of the things contributing to your AC won't apply is an idea that accepts some additional complexity in exchange for some additional fidelity to reality. Right now, the number of those in the game (or listed as optional rules) is somewhat limited in order to keep the core of the game relatively simple. I imagine that if it's something people are hunting after, they could release a module-of-modules of nuanced combat rules that cover things like loss of AC to flat-footedness, pseudo-charge rules, random modifiers for things like being prone or balancing on narrow surfaces and stuff, and so on.
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
They definitely need a list of combat modifiers such as this to give the game some depth. Not including these, at least as an option, will be a huge mistake.
What? No. You cannot break through plate with a mace, Battle of the Trident aside. You use a mace to knock someone down/out, then you stab them in the joints with a knife. Mace is good against chainmail, because it causes internal damage that chainmail isn't designed to protect against.



Actually, the weapon engineers of the late middle ages designed the flanged mace to tear through full plate armor. Those maces were better at breaking through armor than a sword. Battle axes, warhammers (which is more piercing than bludgeoing btw) and polearms (lucerne hammer/halberds) were designed to tear through full plate armor.

Also, blunt weapons could deal damage (understand break bones) to an armored foe without actually breaking through the armor. Even chainmails were good enough to prevent most sword cuts and arrows. A wound with these weapons was usually the result of a (lucky) well placed blow in the weak spots of the armor.

It's really difficult to modelize armor with DR, especially if you want to make a realistic weapon/armor system. Hit points are not just actual physical wounds. It also includes bruises, small cuts, the numbing pain of parrying a 2-handed sword swing, strain on the muscle, etc... Technically, weapons should deal hit point damage if you manage to hit and even more hit point damage (actual wounds) if you manage to break your opponent's armor.

In a realistic system, there's no room for an unarmored foe or even a light armored foe. The only reason soldiers went to war wearing only a brigandine or a gambeson (padded armor) was because they couldn't afford a chainmail or a plate mail.
Ok no just no, doing armor as Dr does not require some kind of wierd extra balancing factor like maintenance. 

You just have Armors count against the reflex/dodge/whatever stat so wearing full plate provides a hefty DR, but at the cost of making dodging fireballs and axe-blows harder so you end up needing that DR more than you would if you ran around without armor. 



The weight was distributed so well on the body with a full plate that it wasn't really hindering. The jousting plate which was designed for leisure, not war, was even thicker and seriously restricted your movement though. A full plate armor was only 45 lbs. and you could run and jump with it.

There was absolutely no advantage of going to war without an armor other than the cool factor and the increased adrenaline rush you get when your life is at risk :p.
Well than maybe it shouldn't be a huge penalty, maybe armor prof should be an actual advantage.
I'd rather "DR" be expressed as a shift in the die size for damage rather than a flat number. Heavy armor decreases the die size of weapon attacks by one step. That compensates for the skill disadvantages and/or movement penalties. Perhaps the top tier armor (full plate) does 2 steps, but even a consistant single step reduction scales just fine. Now if they repeat the mistake of 4e in having the static bonuses overshadow the dice, this solution won't work that well.

Magic Dual Color Test
I am White/Green
I am White/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I am both orderly and instinctive. I value community and group identity, defining myself by the social group I am a part of. At best, I'm selfless and strong-willed; at worst, I'm unoriginal and sheepish.
I'd rather "DR" be expressed as a shift in the die size for damage rather than a flat number. Heavy armor decreases the die size of weapon attacks by one step. That compensates for the skill disadvantages and/or movement penalties. Perhaps the top tier armor (full plate) does 2 steps, but even a consistant single step reduction scales just fine. Now if they repeat the mistake of 4e in having the static bonuses overshadow the dice, this solution won't work that well.

That seems questionable from a logistics standpoint, since it requires remembering what grade of armor whatever it is you're attacking is wearing before you roll. Maybe that's easier to get used to than it seems in my head, but it is unlike most other actions in the game, and is especially weird for attacks with multiple targets. A one-step reduction in damage die size is so close to congruent to DR 1-per-die-rolled that it just seems not worth the memory issues. (The average is the same, and the max and min are close.)
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
Personally  - I'd like to see the gap between light and medium and heavy armor increased (although probably with greater costs/ penalties for wearing heavy armor). 


But there  are far more players who believe that lightly armored fighters standing toe to toe with heavily armored foes are a necessary trope and must be supported fully by the game.


Thus there is little difference between light armor with a high Dex, medium armor with a +2 Dex and heavy armor.


Carl    



Pretty much said it there, allot of players are into the swashbuckling archetype and want to feel they can compete with the knight archetype. So as unrealistic as it is, D&DN feel they are making the right move to appease to their fans.

That being said, I would still like to see a heavily armored warrior benefit from dex, so I'd like this tweaked more.

There is something to say about that thpugh... because in the middle ages, plate armor was pretty much sword proof, and it alloud the knight to be careless (to an extent) on the battlefield, to the point where they could totally focus on offence alone.

But the current reasoning is that heavy armor slows you down to an extent where your dex doesn't matter and that just doesn't make sense whatsoever, and doesn't sit well with me.

As for penalties, I already apply disadvantage to other physical activity including climbing and jumping (not just stealth)
I'm a big fan of DR.  If you don't like the static value version (used in the excellent Dragon Age RPG), Mike Merals himself cobbled together a version for his Iron Heroes d20 game that uses dice to represent the DR. The better your armor is, the better your DR.

I wouldn't mind armor maintanance rules (or weapon maintanance for that matter) but I don't see why they would have to be tied to DR.

I think it's a terrible idea to include in either the Basic or Intermediate game though.

But if they were to come out with a module for these rules (Arms & Equipment Guide anyone?) I'd be the first to buy a copy.

Also, blunt weapons could deal damage (understand break bones) to an armored foe without actually breaking through the armor. Even chainmails were good enough to prevent most sword cuts and arrows. A wound with these weapons was usually the result of a (lucky) well placed blow in the weak spots of the armor.

It's really difficult to modelize armor with DR, especially if you want to make a realistic weapon/armor system. Hit points are not just actual physical wounds. It also includes bruises, small cuts, the numbing pain of parrying a 2-handed sword swing, strain on the muscle, etc... Technically, weapons should deal hit point damage if you manage to hit and even more hit point damage (actual wounds) if you manage to break your opponent's armor.

In a realistic system, there's no room for an unarmored foe or even a light armored foe. The only reason soldiers went to war wearing only a brigandine or a gambeson (padded armor) was because they couldn't afford a chainmail or a plate mail.



1)  a good, two handed stab from a longsword could go straight through chainmail by focusing large amounts of force onto a single ring

2)  thieves and monks weren't often the ones going to war

3)  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berserker 


"Trying to run gritty gothic horror with 4e is like trying to cut down a tree with a hammer, likewise trying to run heroic fantasy with 1e is like trying to hammer a nail with a chainsaw."

 
 

 This is what i get when i hit the Quote button:  http://community.wizards.com/%23

 

  

Well, armor is used with a proficiency right?  So why not tie it to skill dice?

Light armor roll skill die with disadvantage to determine DR
medium armor roll skill die
heavy armor roll skill die with advantage 

At first level this will probably average you out to:
Light 1.5 DR
Medium 2.5 DR
Heavy 3.5 DR

and at level 10 you will have
Light 3
medium 4.5
heavy 6

Then you could add feats or class abilities (for a defender type fighter etc.) that could enhance this.  If the barbarian can "turn on" resistance to all physical damage types, I don't think this is a big issue.

The other way to go is to divorce it from skill dice, and give each armor its own die, up to a 1d12 for full plate.  

How difficult is it to hit?
I would use total attack bonus + shield bonus +10 as Defense Rating.  
So, if you wield a strength weapon, you defend with strength.  Call it a block or a parry.
So a level 1 fighter with a 16 str and a shield would have a Defense of 15.
A level 10 fighter with an 18 str and a shield would have a Defense of 18.

If a character is not wielding a weapon he is proficient with, his defense regresses to just 10 + dex.  He isn't skilled enough with the weapon to effectively block or parry attacks with it so he has to dodge.

Ok no just no, doing armor as Dr does not require some kind of wierd extra balancing factor like maintenance. 

You just have Armors count against the reflex/dodge/whatever stat so wearing full plate provides a hefty DR, but at the cost of making dodging fireballs and axe-blows harder so you end up needing that DR more than you would if you ran around without armor. 



The weight was distributed so well on the body with a full plate that it wasn't really hindering. The jousting plate which was designed for leisure, not war, was even thicker and seriously restricted your movement though. A full plate armor was only 45 lbs. and you could run and jump with it.

There was absolutely no advantage of going to war without an armor other than the cool factor and the increased adrenaline rush you get when your life is at risk :p.


Battle of Agincourt:  french soldiers were fatigued from marching in full plate and sank knee-deep in mud, further exhausting them as they attempted to charge the british

for more information: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Agincour...

"Trying to run gritty gothic horror with 4e is like trying to cut down a tree with a hammer, likewise trying to run heroic fantasy with 1e is like trying to hammer a nail with a chainsaw."

 
 

 This is what i get when i hit the Quote button:  http://community.wizards.com/%23

 

  


Battle of Agincourt:  french soldiers were fatigued from marching in full plate and sank knee-deep in mud, further exhausting them as they attempted to charge the british

for more information: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Agincour...



Are you an actual expert or are you just quoting wikipedia? I didn't make anything up, I'm just repeating what I read in the wiki.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mail_(armour) (check the part on effectiveness)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_armour#Infan... (renaissance section for weight and mobility)
Ok no just no, doing armor as Dr does not require some kind of wierd extra balancing factor like maintenance. 

You just have Armors count against the reflex/dodge/whatever stat so wearing full plate provides a hefty DR, but at the cost of making dodging fireballs and axe-blows harder so you end up needing that DR more than you would if you ran around without armor. 



The weight was distributed so well on the body with a full plate that it wasn't really hindering. The jousting plate which was designed for leisure, not war, was even thicker and seriously restricted your movement though. A full plate armor was only 45 lbs. and you could run and jump with it.

There was absolutely no advantage of going to war without an armor other than the cool factor and the increased adrenaline rush you get when your life is at risk :p.


Battle of Agincourt:  french soldiers were fatigued from marching in full plate and sank knee-deep in mud, further exhausting them as they attempted to charge the british

for more information: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Agincour...



Truth.

The issue here is that full plate armor is not the hollywood costume stuff you see in films.  It was padded clothing, then leather, then chainmail, then stuffing (generally straw until the later innovation of felt cloth during the crusades) then the actual plate armor on top of that.  It was insanely heavy and difficult to move in.  Heatstroke and exhaustion were the enemies of heavy armor.  That and the fact that most knights needed help to stand up if they were kocked down and couldn't mount their horses without assistance.

Now there were versions of "field" plate that were not the full-on monstrosities that full-plate suits were.  These would be used in un-mounted combat and didn't have nearly the same amount of padding and extra weight.

There are issues with just a Greathelm.  Try one on... it intereferes all on its own, and that is without it being locked in with a Gorget.  It sucks not being able to move your head. 
One way to offer an advantage to martial characters wearing armor is to standardize on light, medium and heavy armor. The base value could be light 0-2, medium 3-5, and heavy 6-8. Then for martial characters they would recieve a con bonus to AC for light armor, dex for medium and strength for heavy. Other classes would not recieve the bonus. Then they can add additional properties to light, medium or heavy to highlight why certains armors are used for diferent types of fighting styles or weapon use. Just a thought.
Ok no just no, doing armor as Dr does not require some kind of wierd extra balancing factor like maintenance. 

You just have Armors count against the reflex/dodge/whatever stat so wearing full plate provides a hefty DR, but at the cost of making dodging fireballs and axe-blows harder so you end up needing that DR more than you would if you ran around without armor. 



The weight was distributed so well on the body with a full plate that it wasn't really hindering. The jousting plate which was designed for leisure, not war, was even thicker and seriously restricted your movement though. A full plate armor was only 45 lbs. and you could run and jump with it.

There was absolutely no advantage of going to war without an armor other than the cool factor and the increased adrenaline rush you get when your life is at risk :p.


Battle of Agincourt:  french soldiers were fatigued from marching in full plate and sank knee-deep in mud, further exhausting them as they attempted to charge the british

for more information: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Agincour...



Truth.

The issue here is that full plate armor is not the hollywood costume stuff you see in films.  It was padded clothing, then leather, then chainmail, then stuffing (generally straw until the later innovation of felt cloth during the crusades) then the actual plate armor on top of that.  It was insanely heavy and difficult to move in.  Heatstroke and exhaustion were the enemies of heavy armor.  That and the fact that most knights needed help to stand up if they were kocked down and couldn't mount their horses without assistance.

Now there were versions of "field" plate that were not the full-on monstrosities that full-plate suits were.  These would be used in un-mounted combat and didn't have nearly the same amount of padding and extra weight.

There are issues with just a Greathelm.  Try one on... it intereferes all on its own, and that is without it being locked in with a Gorget.  It sucks not being able to move your head. 



Where is this from?

It's not at all what I'm reading on wikipedia and arcana.wikidot.com/plate-mail. What you're describing looks like the description of the plated mail which was a padded armor, then a mail, then some pieces of plate. And those were extremely bulky and had a poor weight destribution. Plate armour proper did not have mail underneath.

Full plate armor didn't even exist during the crusade according to wikipedia. The first actual full plate armor appeared at the end of the 14th century and had a whole bunch of plate mail or plated mail variants during the intermediary stages of it's development.

If you read the wikipedia, they even explain where the misconceptions on plate armour come from. The helmet you seem to be describing sounds like the Stechzeug armor described in the jousting section of wikipedia.

Do you have anything to back up your claims? Because there seems to be so many misconceptions on plate armor that I don't really know what to believe.

As a side note, the tale of the battle of Aingincourt doesn't countradict this. They say that the french were exhausted. No ****, running around with over 50 lbs. of gear in mud is probably exhausting .
Sign In to post comments