Historical armor question

[AeroDm]

In my homebrew I am looking to bring back armor vulnerabilities to different weapon types as a potential option for distinguishing armors within a given category (i.e. light armor). The problem is that I don't have my old books with me and I don't personally have that knowledge stored away in my head. I also don't recall if the old books were particularly accurate and would like to defer to history if possible.

So which armors were vulnerable against what? Let's assume the standard pierce, bludgeon, slash if possible, but any details that help flesh this out would be appreciated!

 

[Argyle King]

From what I remember, slashing blades are usually not as good against mail and plate.

 

[coce]

the whole thing is here:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbGFb1Pu-YA]‪Weapons that Made Britain: Armour (Part 1)‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Darwinism]

Pretty much nothing was 'good' against late-era plate except firearms, sometimes longbows from point-blank range, and sometimes crossbows. At least, until you got into hand-to-hand with them, and then you'd basically rely on trying to stick a specialized, very stout dagger into their joints.

Realism is boring, gritty, and terrible, though.

 

[Hand of Evil]

Armor was only good for the "current" form of offensive weapon. Basicly don't look at armor but what weapons you are going to be using in your campaign, then pick the armor.

Also, create levels of weapons. Example of this is the crossbow, but at what stage is it; early devolopment, at its peak, futuristic? Early devolopment could mean things like; range is shorter, does not do as much damage. Futuristic, could be faster crank and power.

Remember, this is a fantasy game and not all weapons and armor will be found in a given spot. You can also adjust things to fit your world-myth and campaign.

 

[Reynard]

Realism is boring, gritty, and terrible, though.

That's a funny way to spell "awesome".

More seriously, a hint of realism goes a long way toward improving immersion and verisimilitude, not to mention broadening the base of tools from which to draw upon. It's the difference between The Song of Ice and Fire and The Wheel of Time -- not as a question of superiority, but of preference.

If you want a world that even superficially resembles Europes middle ages, as most D&D-esque fantasy worlds do, you must give at least some thought to realism. PCs can be as amazing and spectacular as you like, but for there to be castles and peasants and knights, the foundation has to be "realistic."

For examples of what I am talking about, see Game of Thrones, Ladyhawk and Dragonslayer.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Its difficult to mix historical armor qualities with the D&D AC system. Hard leather armor is much more protective than its AC would lead you to believe. Likewise brigandine of good construction can afford better protection than mail on average.

These issues are inevitable when you try to add simulationist elements to a system rooted in abstraction.

 

[Darwinism]

That's a funny way to spell "awesome".

More seriously, a hint of realism goes a long way toward improving immersion and verisimilitude, not to mention broadening the base of tools from which to draw upon. It's the difference between The Song of Ice and Fire and The Wheel of Time -- not as a question of superiority, but of preference.

If you want a world that even superficially resembles Europes middle ages, as most D&D-esque fantasy worlds do, you must give at least some thought to realism. PCs can be as amazing and spectacular as you like, but for there to be castles and peasants and knights, the foundation has to be "realistic."

For examples of what I am talking about, see Game of Thrones, Ladyhawk and Dragonslayer.

The only hint of realism present in most fantasy is the idealized depiction of medieval times. Few people actually want anything more than the illusion of realism simply because being almost certain to die if you get any serious wound is boring for players, dying of another outbreak of the Black Death is boring, and so on. The realism in the vast majority of fantasy worlds doesn't come from any thought-out concerns for verisimilitude, god what a pretentious word, but simply from the fact that that's the picture they're painting. You mention people with swords and mail and castles and blammo, you've got a medieval-inspired setting in people's minds where almost no one starves to death, and a third of the planet doesn't die to a plague, and a single wound's not gonna kill even Joe Peasant if he just gets bed-rest. There's no hint of realism besides the objects and titles used.

 

[ExploderWizard]

The realism in the vast majority of fantasy worlds doesn't come from any thought-out concerns for verisimilitude, god what a pretentious word, but simply from the fact that that's the picture they're painting.

Verisimilitude is not realism, it is rather merely the illusion of such.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Its difficult to mix historical armor qualities with the D&D AC system. Hard leather armor is much more protective than its AC would lead you to believe. Likewise brigandine of good construction can afford better protection than mail on average.

These issues are inevitable when you try to add simulationist elements to a system rooted in abstraction.

Yeah, and I think supply and demand, as well as available wealth, is an even bigger impediment to matching the simulation with the abstraction. For example, you've got a bunch of mercenaries/landless "knights"/town levies running around that would be quite happy to upgrade whatever armor they have to something they think is better, but they can't afford it. To model this, you have to go way beyond what works in combat into the whole economic system of the world being simulated. But if you want "heroic fantasy", the disadvantages of going that route can quickly overwhelm any benefits. (If you want gritty, realistic fantasy, it might be another story.) Plus, there are only so many skilled craftsman engaged in making the best armor. Not everyone can have it.

There are also upkeep issues to some armor that aren't typically modeled. Leather is pretty good protection, but can deteriorate rather rapidly if not carefully maintained (oiled, and so forth). Chain is, against many weapons, almost as good as Plate for a faction of the cost, but takes a disproportionate amount of constant work to avoid rusting. (I think those details are correct. But I'm not an expert. Something like those issues are correct, even if those details are wrong.)

What might work in a more abstract, heroic fantasy style, is to somewhat abstract things like wealth and social station and upkeep, and then make these resources that a character has to invest in to get some of the better armor. If you invest enough in "landed knight", then you can afford plate, which is simply better than some of the cheaper armor. But then the guy wearing chain or heavy leather got to spend those resources learning something that gave him a different advantage. From a simulation perspective, that even make rough sense. That landed knight has responsibilities to go with that resource.

Of course, any such abstraction will have some edge cases that impinge on the simulation side. You can't get around that. But it might give you "good enough" for heroic fantasy, at a tiny percentage of the drawbacks of detailing everything.