Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gothmog" data-source="post: 3692926" data-attributes="member: 317">Ok, I can give you several good reasons armor spikes are bad ideas, based on kinesthetics and kinesiology.#1  While small armor spikes on the straight portions of the arms, legs, and torso might be protective against grapplers, they are also grossly inconvenient.  Imagine being driven back by a blow into a wooden wall when you're wearing spiked armor on your torso and limbs.  Now, what might have otherwise been a jarring blow from staggering into the wall is suddenly life-threatening because you've impaled your armor spikes into the wall.  While you're trying to free yourself, your opponent is raining blows down on your head and body pretty much unopposed.#2  Whoever said it above was absolutely correct- armor is designed to deflect the incoming attack's force, not stop it.  By adding armor spikes, you redirect the tangential movement of the weapon back into the armor, increasing the amount of impact the weapon causes, and reducing the effectiveness of the armor.  A good example of this is found in why not many cultures used horned helmets.  If a blow landed on the end of the horn of the helmet, it could act as a lever, and cause enough torque to snap someone's neck.  While horned helmets look cool, they are hugely impractical.#3  Your sense of proprioception (where your body is in space around you) would be completely thrown off with armor spikes.  In addtion to the example I gave in #1, you'd be forever bumping into objects, snagging them on your limbs, and generally impeding your movement because the spikes aren't a living part of your body.  Yes, spikes work for porcupines because they are flexible.  They work for ankylosaurus becasue they are SHORT.  Pufferfish have spikes that expand out only when danger threatens them so they can inject their attacker with tetrodotoxin.  For a human, who wasn't born with spikes and has no way to tell where they are in relation to a limb, they would be a hassle at the least, and a deadly hazard at worst.#4  The whole kineseological aspect of movement would be a bigger danger to the wearer than the grappler.  Basically, putting spikes on joints is more likely to harm the wearer than anyone else.  As Whizbang said, putting armor spikes on the shoulders (or knees, or hips, or elbows, etc) impedes your range of motion, and with Regdar, if he raised his arm too quickly trying to defend himself, he'd lacerate his face, causing him to bleed (maybe even into his eyes causing blindness) and possibly break bones from self-inflicted injuries.  In addition, if a spike is struck by a blow, not only could the torque it generates dislocate or break a limb, but if the spike was bent it might prevent movement of the appendage, further putting the wearer at risk.  Sounds pretty dumb to put armor spikes on joints to me.Now, I can hear the response before I even post this "but you don't know kinesthetics and kinesiology even apply in the D&D world."  Well, yes I do.  If we assume that a sword cuts because a sharpened edge exposes less surface area of the weapon during a blow so greater pressure is exerted in a smaller space for the purposes of cutting, or of the recoil of a released bowstring launches an arrow, then kinesthetics and kinesiology from reality apply too.  While D&D isn't supposed to be realistic, lets use some common sense.  Saying that "D&D isn't supposed to be realistic" to dismiss any arguements against the current incarnation of D&D is a strawman arguement and has little validity.  While I think armor spikes look stupid from an aesthetic point of view (too edgy and dungeonpunky), in reality they weren't used much for battle because they were so impractical and deadly to the wearer.</blockquote>

Verification