Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Cap'n Kobold" data-source="post: 6909404" data-attributes="member: 6802951">Problem being that there is an equally ill-conceived argument being bandied about that NO D&amp;D style armours should apply vs firearms of ANY type.We are aware that the primary reasons for the decline of armour and rise of firearms were more to do with economics than actual effectiveness of one vs the other. We're also aware that relatively primitive armours could be made effective against even rather sophisticated firearms: just ask the Kelly brothers.&nbsp;Indeed. Of both firearms, bows, crossbows and most hand weapons as well.Certainly for most martial weapons, if a weapon was utterly ineffective against the armour of its time, it would have been discarded.The point that you may be missing is that there is actually an area between &quot;ignores the armour&quot; and &quot;utterly incapable of penetrating&quot;. Glancing blows and non-optimal angles of impact are a thing. &nbsp; . . . And sometime that &quot;slowed down&quot; you speak of was enough to bring the ball to a stop, giving no worse than a nasty bruise. From actual anecdotes we're aware that even arming jackets and leather were capable of doing this. Sturdier armour was just better at it. The fact that we have examples of armour stopping musket balls doesn't obviate the examples of musket balls managing to penetrate armour. And nobody here is arguing that it does.&nbsp;95% sounds a lot higher than the studies I've seen on the subject seem to indicate. Could you pass me a link to the source paper please?&nbsp;In the end, the majority of people here seem to be aware that there is no absolute truth one way or the other, any more than there is regarding many other weapons and the AC system. Thus, the basis that you should be judging the mechanics that you want to use on should be more to do with the actual game.What role in both mechanics and setting do you want firearms to fulfil in your game?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Cap'n Kobold, post: 6909404, member: 6802951"] Problem being that there is an equally ill-conceived argument being bandied about that NO D&D style armours should apply vs firearms of ANY type. We are aware that the primary reasons for the decline of armour and rise of firearms were more to do with economics than actual effectiveness of one vs the other. We're also aware that relatively primitive armours could be made effective against even rather sophisticated firearms: just ask the Kelly brothers. Indeed. Of both firearms, bows, crossbows and most hand weapons as well. Certainly for most martial weapons, if a weapon was utterly ineffective against the armour of its time, it would have been discarded. The point that you may be missing is that there is actually an area between "ignores the armour" and "utterly incapable of penetrating". Glancing blows and non-optimal angles of impact are a thing. . . . And sometime that "slowed down" you speak of was enough to bring the ball to a stop, giving no worse than a nasty bruise. From actual anecdotes we're aware that even arming jackets and leather were capable of doing this. Sturdier armour was just better at it. The fact that we have examples of armour stopping musket balls doesn't obviate the examples of musket balls managing to penetrate armour. [I]And nobody here is arguing that it does.[/I] 95% sounds a lot higher than the studies I've seen on the subject seem to indicate. Could you pass me a link to the source paper please? In the end, the majority of people here seem to be aware that there is no absolute truth one way or the other, any more than there is regarding many other weapons and the AC system. Thus, the basis that you should be judging the mechanics that you want to use on should be more to do with the actual [B][I]game[/I][/B]. [I]What role in both mechanics and setting do you want firearms to fulfil in your game?[/I] [/QUOTE]

Verification