HELP! Avenger issue

[ArmoredSaint]

Look at Bannockburn. Heavy armor was not to the British favor. (Neither were heavy horse in mud)

Okay, let's.

Bannockburn is one of only a handful of battles the Scots ever won against the English. The fact is, the English(who were invariably more heavily-armoured than the Scots) trounced them in literally dozens of other battles in history.

List of battles between Scotland and England - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The English handily won most of the battles in which they faced the Scots. Modern "Celtic Fever" and that awful Braveheart movie are what make the public remember the very few times in history the Scots actually won.

It is noteworthy that the lack of armour on the part of the Scots (especially the highlanders) is what caused them to take such heavy casualties in several such battles (see Homildon hill in particular). Scotland was a poor, backwards nation, and was always a generation or so behind England and the Continent in arms and armour development.

Ironically, the early 16th century saw the Scots begin to outfit themselves in decent plate armour imported from Germany or the Low Countries, and English chroniclers note that, at the battle of Flodden in 1513, this armour rendered the English archery ineffective. But the Scots still lost.

I'd also like to point out that it wasn't heavy armour that lost Bannockburn for the English. What's more, the Scottish upper class were just as heavily armoured as the English at that battle. The battle is not a referendum on the effectiveness of heavy armour.

I don't think it was anything other than increasing use of massed gunfire that finally drove heavy armour from the battlefield. Prior to its advent, everyone in Europe who could afford it tried to acquire the very best armour available. You don't see anyone, no matter how highly trained, opting for lesser armour when they had access to better. Heavy armour wa simply better at keeping you alive in the press of battle than lighter stuff was. Armour worked.

The game statistic is called Armour Class for a reason: Heavy armour should rule this stat. It's just right from the point of view of both theme and verisimilitude. I'm not saying that the agile, lightly-armoured fighter archetype should suck compared to the man in plate, but I do think that good armour should represent the very pinnacle of personal defense in this game--not wearing animal hides and maxing out your dexterity.

 

[Herschel]

Bannockburn and Stirling were examples of mobility being important due to terrain. In the Battle of Stirling Bridge, the English basically got "swamped" and separated when the bridge was essentially taken out. At Bannockburn, the terrain was turned against the English when they were forced to the bottoms. These were relatively isolated occurances, yes, but they happened.

There are simply times when mobility is a better defense than heavy armor.

An excerpt from the very link you used:
"There now occurred one of the most memorable episodes in Scottish history. Henry de Bohun, nephew of the Earl of Hereford, was riding ahead of his companions when he caught sight of the Scottish king. De Bohun lowered his lance and began a charge that carried him to lasting fame. King Robert was mounted on a small palfrey and armed only with a battle-axe.[9] He had no armour on. As de Bohun's great war-horse thundered towards him, he stood his ground, watched with mounting anxiety by his own army. With the Englishman only feet away, Bruce turned aside, stood in his stirrups and hit the knight so hard with his axe that he split his helmet and head in two. This small incident became in a larger sense a symbol of the war itself: the one side heavily armed but lacking agility; the other highly mobile and open to opportunity. Rebuked by his commanders for the enormous risk he had taken, the king only expressed regret that he had broken the shaft of his axe.
Cheered by this heroic encounter, Bruce's division rushed forward to engage the main enemy force. For the English, so says the author of the Vita Edwardi Secundi (Life of Edward II), this was the beginning of their troubles. After some fierce fighting, in which the Earl of Gloucester was knocked off his horse, the knights of the vanguard were forced to retreat to the Tor Wood. The Scots, eager to pursue, were held back by the command of the king.
In the meantime, another English cavalry force under Robert Clifford and Henry de Beaumont skirted the Scottish position to the east and rode towards Stirling, advancing as far as St. Ninians. Bruce spotted the manoeuvre and ordered Randolph's schiltron to intercept.
Randolph's action was to be a sampler of the main contest the following day: unsupported by archers, the horsemen were unable to make any impression on the Scots spearmen, precisely what had happened in the opening stages of Falkirk. The difference now was that the schiltrons had learnt mobility and how to keep formation at the same time. The English squadron was broken, some seeking refuge in the nearby castle, others fleeing back to the army. The captives included Sir Thomas Gray, whose son and namesake was later to base his account of the Battle of Bannockburn in his book, the Scalacronica, on his father's memories."

 

[Herschel]

His point is - I think - that a melee class with light armor has a better AC than a melee class with heavy armor. There's something a little jarring in that statement.

I'm just under 6'4" and have played around a bit with swords, including wickers. I'm strong, but not really all that nimble. I was a RB in football in to college. I wasn't asked to run outside all that much. Two things from this:

Smaller, quicker opponents are hard to hit because of their mobility. A quickly moving target is tougher to hit than a slower one.

Even in football, look at the padding. Receivers and D-Backs, the speed positions, wear lighter, smaller pads for a reason (ie:lighter "armor"). A lineman would never get away with that level of padding because of their "role" in constantly crashing with other big boys. Their protection comes from their build and heavier pads. Receivers and D-Backs protection comes from the ability to more often avoid contact with the heavies. Tackling a receiver in the open field is MUCH tougher than tackling a lineman.

 

[ArmoredSaint]

I'm still not seeing evidence that the English lost at Bannockburn simply because their armour was too heavy.

The original point you made that I responded to was: "Heavy armor was not to the British favor". Most of the time, though, yes it was.

Also from the link I posted:

King Robert turned away those who were not adequately equipped...It is highly probable that a large proportion of the spearmen had acquired more extensive armour given that the country had been at war for nearly twenty years. This is in contrast to the modern romantic notion of the Scots army, which depicts its foot soldiers clad in kilts, painted woad and little else.

Once again, Bannockburn is not a referendum on the effectiveness of heavy armour. QED, the scots themselves were armoured.

At least one chronicle of the battle of Flodden notes that the contingent of unarmoured highland scots present at the battle melted away under the arrow fire while the better-armoured scots "abode the most dangerous shot of arrows, which sore them annoyed, but yet it hit them in some bare place, did them no harm". Now, Flodden field was so muddy, that many soldiers on both the English and Scottish sides took off their shoes for better purchase in the mud. Being more lightly armoured did not do those highlanders any good at all. I'm sure there were some among them who were pretty nimble fellows, but they still died because they weren't wearing adequate body armour.

Sure, it might be tougher to hit a lightly-clad agile man, but it should be harder to hurt a man clad in steel armour.

 

[Flipguarder]

holy crap this thread took an odd turn!

And I've just decided in any thread where they are talking about things I don't get and don't have the patience to study I'm going to say this:


I agree with Nail.

 

[Kordeth]

Sure, it might be tougher to hit a lightly-clad agile man, but it should be harder to hurt a man clad in steel armour.

Luckily, 4E abstracts those distinctions out sufficiently that, from a mechanical standpoint, they're largely irrelevant. Missed attacks due to high AC from heavy armor can be described as bouncing off the armor with little or no effect, while missed attacks due to crazy-Dex-monkey light armor AC can be described as nimble dodges, feints, and evasions.

 

[Flipguarder]

I like to describe Avengers as being given an aura by their god as a reward for charging head first into the front lines of battle believing that their god will protect them. This aura slightly blurs their outline as well as provides a small amount of force-like protection.

 

[Lauberfen]

I think comparisons to warfare are relatively useless, although they may be all we have- D&D is not warfare, it is at most small-scale skirmishing, and usually fights have only a few opponents on a side.

Armour in warfare serves to protect you from random blows, arrows etc, not a single opponent engaging you in melee.

In a duelling situation, I have no idea of how useful armour would be. I suspect that the reduced mobility (although not as great as people might expect, particularly with sophisticated plate mails) and especially reduced vision might outweigh the benefits of the increased protection- it is likely that a solid blow will incapacitate even a well-armoured opponent.

Another point- heavy armour was always designed for use on horseback, and D&D is not about cavalry battles.

 

[ArmoredSaint]

Another point- heavy armour was always designed for use on horseback, and D&D is not about cavalry battles.

Not necessarily. For most of the Hundred Years War and the Wars of the Roses, the English made their heavily-armoured knights and men-at-arms dismount and fight on foot with their archers.

...it is likely that a solid blow will incapacitate even a well-armoured opponent.

I suppose that depends on what you're striking him with. A wielder of a pick or mace designed to injure an opponent in heavy armour might well expect decent results with a solid blow, but you could bang your sword (especially a sword wielded in one hand) all day on a man in full plate, and still not do him any appreciable harm.

Missed attacks due to high AC from heavy armor can be described as bouncing off the armor with little or no effect, while missed attacks due to crazy-Dex-monkey light armor AC can be described as nimble dodges, feints, and evasions.

And that being so, I argue that the character in heavy armour should still have a higher AC than any high-dex character in no/light armour.

 

[DrSpunj]

And I've just decided in any thread where they are talking about things I don't get and don't have the patience to study I'm going to say this:

I agree with Nail.

Ouch, that's going to go to his head!