Even in the real world, studies and opinions about the effectiveness and vulnerabilities of armor are varied and contradictory.
Personally I feel that for the most part, each specific armor protects equally well against slashing, piercing, and bludgeoning damage/weapon types (for the specific armor, not as compared to other armors). However, some specific
weapons (as opposed to
weapon types) improved your chances against certain armors. I find that bonuses to specific weapons against certain armors is easier to model and adjudicate, and probably more realistic, than flat penalties to certain armors against specific types of damage/weapon types.
Plate was specifically vulnerable to weapons such as Picks, Hammers (but not large mauls - they spread their energy out too much for plate), and Maces (as almost all slashing weapons and most other piercing weapons were virtually useless unless the target was somehow rendered defenseless).
Scale might have some added vulnerability to piercing melee weapons (if they are capable of being used with an "upward" attack so as to slip between the scales). Same with Lamellar (between the plates or strips). Though I don't know if this was a significant enough vulnerability to warrant a mechanical bonus or penalty.
Mail was mostly immune to the slashing attack of a sword (though the bludgeoning force may still be transmitted if a suitably thick Gambeson wasn't worn), but a slashing attack from an axe had a fairly decent chance of success. Mail would provide a pretty flat level of protection against piercing weapons (difficult but not impossible) and bludgeoning weapons.
Lighter Armors (Leather/Studded Leather, Padded/Gambeson, Brigandine/Coat of Plates, etc.) in my opinion, didn't really have an increased vulnerability to either any specific weapons or specific types of damage.
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.
Highly subjective and debateable - but I do know for sure that:
- "most" is not "all"...
- "few" is not "all"...
- "the vast majority" is not "all"...
Highly Subjective because I'm sure you don't have the means by which to know, or have been able to collect data on each and every instance of RPG play in each and every home - nor have likely sampled a significantly large enough representation of all published RPG's, campaigns, fiction, and fantasy worlds - to be qualified to make such statements as: "
most fantasy..."; "
few people..."; and "
the vast majority of fantasy worlds".
Realism is boring, gritty, and terrible, though.
What a pretentious statement...
This is purely subjective yet stated as an absolute declaration. It's true only as pertains to you, and can contribute nothing meaningful to the conversation other than to piss people off. There are enough people that find Realism to be exciting, enjoyable, and preferred, that there's a market for it in the industry and quite a few threads about this very subject right here at ENWorld (not to mention other forums also).
In the future, maybe try something of this sort instead:
I find realism to be boring, gritty, and terrible.
Truthful, uncontestable, definitive (not subjective), and a (relatively) meaningul contribution to the conversation.
