Essentials (Comments)

[GreyLord]

As a guy who hangs out with people who regularly (not often, but regularly) wear plate mail, I find this unlikely. Most of them, if the armor is properly fitted, could likely swim in the stuff. It wouldn't be pretty, but they could do it. Someone who was clumsy enough that they couldn't stand up in the stuff would be dead meat on a battlefield.

Alternately, in the military I had to swim 50 meters with 30 kilos of gear (more than the listed weight of plate armor in the phb) before they let me out of training. I'd imagine a knight would have an easier time of it, as their armor was more evenly distributed than my kit.

That's because most of their plate armor is made out of modern metal and isn't made like the armor of old.

Originally most knights actually wore chainmail or mail in that fashion. They could move pretty normally. Later plate came about, and at the time made knights almost impregnable to normal damage (yes, their armor was made so that most knights did NOT die from the initial attacks, but later when the stabbers came out on the field of battle and stabbed under the joints). This is one of many reasons for an abnormally high amount of nobles being taken captive from the field rather than having died in the initial battle with their men at arms.

So, weapons evolved to where they could pierce plate armor. At this point plate armor got thicker...to ridiculous levels. They had to withstand gunpowder weapons amongst other items. At this point the armor DID get heavy enough that they couldn't even mount their horses...they could stop bullets...but heaven help them if they fell.

Eventually some would realize that it didn't matter as much, preferring mobility and wearing lighter armor overall, but prior to that, Plate armor got HEAVY.

I don't think I've seen modern plate done for those in the medieval fantasy fighting clubs they have about done in the fashion of those heavy plate armors...probably because most would collapse from their weight in this modern age. Secondly because most prefer to try to recreate the age of fighting with swords and axes instead of polearms, guns, and other weapons in that age of heavy armor.

 

[Dausuul]

That's because most of their plate armor is made out of modern metal and isn't made like the armor of old.

Indeed. The armor of old was better designed and better crafted. Modern repro armor is made by smiths who have to guess at the techniques that a much larger number of medieval smiths worked out over centuries.

So, weapons evolved to where they could pierce plate armor. At this point plate armor got thicker...to ridiculous levels. They had to withstand gunpowder weapons amongst other items. At this point the armor DID get heavy enough that they couldn't even mount their horses...they could stop bullets...but heaven help them if they fell.

Source for this statement, please. Every source I can find indicates a weight range for field plate armor of around 45-60 pounds, no more than that--not exactly feather-light, but certainly not encumbering to the point of being unable to mount a horse or stand up unassisted. Jousting plate was heavier, to be sure, but you didn't wear that stuff to war.

To me, claims like this don't pass the smell test. Armor such as you describe is simply not practical for the uncertainties of the battlefield. As others have pointed out, horses can be killed. If you were facing an enemy with the weapons and discipline to threaten you, the mounted knight, the same enemy was quite capable of killing your horse out from under you. On the other hand, if the enemy broke and fled in the face of your cavalry charge, armor was largely irrelevant. Either way, there was nothing to be gained from wearing armor too heavy to move in.

Obviously, if you were knocked off your horse in melee, you were in a bad spot--but not because your armor stopped you from getting up. You were in a bad spot because you were a) possibly injured from the fall and b) flat on your back in the middle of a melee!

 

[GreyLord]

Indeed. The armor of old was better designed and better crafted. Modern repro armor is made by smiths who have to guess at the techniques that a much larger number of medieval smiths worked out over centuries.



Source for this statement, please. Every source I can find indicates a weight range for field plate armor of around 45-60 pounds, no more than that--not exactly feather-light, but certainly not encumbering to the point of being unable to mount a horse or stand up unassisted. Jousting plate was heavier, to be sure, but you didn't wear that stuff to war.

To me, claims like this don't pass the smell test. Armor such as you describe is simply not practical for the uncertainties of the battlefield. As others have pointed out, horses can be killed. If you were facing an enemy with the weapons and discipline to threaten you, the mounted knight, the same enemy was quite capable of killing your horse out from under you. On the other hand, if the enemy broke and fled in the face of your cavalry charge, armor was largely irrelevant. Either way, there was nothing to be gained from wearing armor too heavy to move in.

Obviously, if you were knocked off your horse in melee, you were in a bad spot--but not because your armor stopped you from getting up. You were in a bad spot because you were a) possibly injured from the fall and b) flat on your back in the middle of a melee!

Depends on how much reading you want to do. I don't have internet sources off the top of my head. Don't feel much like searching around the internet for them.

Horses were also pretty heavily armored, but I imagine the guns were aiming more for the knight then the horse. Probably because most of those in the really heavy armor would have been leading troops, and getting close to them would have been easier to just shoot them, then to try to aim through the forces at the horse.

Plus, horses are replaceable, the Lord is not.

It should be added, this was specifically designed (the really heavy and thick armor), if I remember correctly, to survive gunfire...and the gunner typically will get one shot. Who do you try to kill, the Lord, or his horse. You kill the Lord you might end the war, you kill his horse you still have to get to him through his troops. If he was wearing this armor, he probably wasn't planning on getting into melee, though if he did, they'd still have to beat his own cavalry even if they did manage to knock him off his horse (and accordingly, with the tactics at the time, if they were close enough to fight him in melee, and actually cut through his forces to get to him, he'd probably be dead anyways...regardless of whatever armor he's wearing).

The Lord invariably probably also had OTHER armor he'd wear for other purposes or reasons. Later, and even at the same time, many preferred mobility to armor...and that armor in many respects was LIGHTER than that of the plate before. In fact, the conquistadors and others wore plate that was remarkably less heavy than what you see on knights of previous centuries, lending more for mobility.

Eventually, of course, I think it was determined that the drawbacks of making something thick enough to stop gunfire was not advantageous to the detriments it gave.

In fact, eventually armor really stopped being worn at all until the last few decades (with the Kevlar vests, body Armor, etc. worn by modern military).

 

[Gryph]

This right here.

Maybe you're just shaken because you've fallen and landed on your ass. You apparently didn't make that acrobatics check, afterall. After taking a bit to recover (short rest) you shake it off and move on (spend a healing surge).

Not all damage in D&D is physical. That's why a Warlord can just yell at you and get you back on your feet.

Exactly this, my Taclord was an old military sergeant whose inspiring word was "Get up or you'll get my boot up your ass!".

The character is retired now; but my gaming group still talks about the "Boots of Healing".


Edit for the historical roots of knights drowning in full armor.

At the battle of Agincourt, it was reported that the Duke of York died by drowning after being unhorsed. It should be noted that the duke was over 60, over 300 pounds and fell face first in thick mud wearing a pig faced bassinet. None of which should be taken as typical for his period or any other. Odds are he suffocated rather than actually drowning when he was stuck in the mud and all the openings in his faceplate were blocked.

 

[Dausuul]

Depends on how much reading you want to do. I don't have internet sources off the top of my head. Don't feel much like searching around the internet for them.

Okay. How about a book then? Title and author?

Horses were also pretty heavily armored, but I imagine the guns were aiming more for the knight then the horse. Probably because most of those in the really heavy armor would have been leading troops, and getting close to them would have been easier to just shoot them, then to try to aim through the forces at the horse.

You didn't rely on precision marksmanship with an arquebus or early musket, and you certainly wouldn't use the D&D tactic of "focus fire on the leader"--that's a tactic you hardly ever see in a world without hit points. You'd point at the guy right in front of you and shoot. If you bring down his horse, you've dumped the poor fellow on the ground in the middle of a cavalry charge, which is a Nasty Place To Be... plus the fallen horse might trip up the horse behind it. Considering the horse is a bigger target and not as well armored as the rider, it's quite a good thing to shoot at.

 

[jbear]

Essentials Comments ... anyone?

I forward the motion to edit the title of the thread to something to do with falling damage and the effect of plate armour upon a combatants agility ... (how about: 'Falling in Full Plate Armour')

All of those in favour say 'aye'.

 

[RigaMortus2]

Even a 1st level wizard can survive a 10 foot fall these days. The damage might be a bit higher but so are the hit points. You have to remember that 5.5 hit points of damage isn't a broken leg. It's a measure of how fatigued, knocked around and unlucky you are. You don't start showing signs of damage until you are bloodied.

4E - The game where a hit can really be a miss, and a miss can really be a hit!

 

[GreyLord]

Okay. How about a book then? Title and author?



You didn't rely on precision marksmanship with an arquebus or early musket, and you certainly wouldn't use the D&D tactic of "focus fire on the leader"--that's a tactic you hardly ever see in a world without hit points. You'd point at the guy right in front of you and shoot. If you bring down his horse, you've dumped the poor fellow on the ground in the middle of a cavalry charge, which is a Nasty Place To Be... plus the fallen horse might trip up the horse behind it. Considering the horse is a bigger target and not as well armored as the rider, it's quite a good thing to shoot at.

And that reveals all I need to really know. Believe it or not, most LORDS (that would have had the money and tools for this type of armor) did NOT do what you see in some movies and some do in their Fantasy Medieval warrior play...they actually did NOT LEAD any charge. They felt being at the front was a good way to get themselves killed.

Some did (be at the front of the line)...but most did not. Even back then they still had a sense of survival...and the front of the line...was normally not a good position for survival. If they faced gunfire it would have most likely been a hail (or bombardment) of bullets at their area, and they would be more vulnerable then their horse in such a situation. However, of course horses could be killed just as easily, but the intent would be to kill the soldiers, knights, and those trying to kill you. Perhaps you should be so kind to tell them that they should kill all the horses instead of the men, that would lead to some different results throughout history (Stonewall Jackson would thank you perhaps, being assured that all people could then target the horses with such accuracy, and leave the riders to simply fall of dead horses instead of being hit by bullets instead) involving cavalry and those on horse.

Horses WERE killed, but the entire point is that the person on the horse would not be killed and could be taken off the field alive. Your example (which isn't very realistic) of a Knight at the front of a charge (who would be one of the first one's hit) would die regardless in all probability. If his horse was killed and he fell to the ground to be trampled by several dozen steeds, he would still be killed even in any other Lighter armor anyways. Hence your point is rather moot on that standing.

I'm not going to waste mine...and if you wish, your time on any type of discussion with that type of thinking...next you'll be trying to discuss how great two weapon fighters were on horseback compared to those with lances or spears (aka...nonsense, which you may believe(edit, sp) I'm full of nonsense...and after your statement rather makes me feel like I should probably not waste the time talking on anything in relation to your statements).

 

[Dausuul]

And that reveals all I need to really know. Believe it or not, most LORDS (that would have had the money and tools for this type of armor) did NOT do what you see in some movies and some do in their Fantasy Medieval warrior play...they actually did NOT LEAD any charge. They felt being at the front was a good way to get themselves killed.

Hey, you were the one claiming everybody was going to be shooting at the lord in his fancy armor. I was pointing out that this wasn't going to happen, because it's not how the firearms of the time were used. If the lord isn't leading the charge, it's going to happen even less, so why did you bring him up in the first place?

Horses WERE killed, but the entire point is that the person on the horse would not be killed and could be taken off the field alive. Your example (which isn't very realistic) of a Knight at the front of a charge (who would be one of the first one's hit) would die regardless in all probability. If his horse was killed and he fell to the ground to be trampled by several dozen steeds, he would still be killed even in any other Lighter armor anyways.

A knight being at the front of a charge is unrealistic? Who was doing the charging then?

But setting that aside--the point is that there are diminishing returns on adding weight to your armor. No matter how heavy your armor is, your horse can be shot out from under you, and once you close to melee, a guy with a halberd can snag you off your mount. If you survive the fall and are not immediately killed or captured, you will want to be able to get up and fight. War being what it is, the likelihood of this happening at some point in your knightly career is fairly high. Against that, you put the marginal increase in protection gained by increasing the thickness of your armor to ludicrous levels; at some point the tradeoff is not worth the gain, and I find it very hard to believe that it's worth rendering yourself practically helpless.

After digging into it some more, I've found one mention of a suit of war armor weighing 84 pounds, from the late 16th century. (Jousting plate, on the other hand, could run up to 125 pounds. That stuff, I'd believe the need for a crane or at least a stepladder.) 84 pounds is certainly very heavy, but it's not unsupportable--once again, modern soldiers carry 100 pounds of gear on the march and can certainly get up again if they fall over.

This page shows a comparison of modern reproduction armor with genuine 16th-century Maximillian plate. Conveniently, it includes weight comparisons. The original armor weighs in at a shade over 65 pounds.

 

[GreyLord]

You might want to read up on some books instead of a retailer, but hey...who cares about valid history anyways.

I pointed out about the Lord because your average knight in a charge isn't going to be WEARING such armor (edit, in fact many may prefer chain or regular plate, if there isn't gunfire, for which the heavy plate I was talking about being used, there really isn't a reason to wear it in the first place. Most would probably be wearing something applicable to whatever they were going to be fighting against. A LORD could be under fire however...gunpowder weapons were far more useful than simply putting it in front of charging cavalry, for example, blasting down walls, hitting commands, etc.

Anyways, as I already said...you've demonstrated already that it's pointless even discussing the basic tactics used during the day. This is why I always hated these medieval reinactment groups. I know some professors love them because they get people interested in the period, but they spread just as much disinformation as getting people interested. I'm glad that you have information on armors made with modern metals...from people who make it their job to make fantasy a reality for Hollywood, but I think your Hollywood and my books are talking two different languages here. Very good at making modern replicas, highly suggested if you can afford them...but really a different wavelength between history and their replica business.

Edit: Actually, the better wording would be that they are not talking different then what I'm really looking at...the emphasis being more on your Hollywood and my books...rather than specifically anything the Hollywood armorers are looking at. Your interpretation and relavance of them is the different wavelength here. No offense intended, I'm not trying to slight the armorers as they don't appear to be in the wrong...but I think (besides your lack of tactics in the situation) you are trying to apply a mass scale armor to a specific small scale creation during the age...and that simply doesn't work.