D&D General [History] How heavy armors and long swords were used in the 15th century

[Hussar]

@Hellditch does have the right of it. Sure, two heavy armored humans is one thing, but, frankly, most D&D combat isn't that. Heck, most of the time you're not even fighting things with two arms and legs.

Now, I've always argued that swords are FAR too effective in D&D (sorry, no, you cannot kill an elephant with a sword, let alone a 60 foot dinosaur) but, again, it gets back to that whole suspension of disbelief. Yeah, realistically, all our fighter types should be using spears, of one kind or another, but, fantasy art has taught us that swords and battle axes are just so COOL.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Think they were still in 2E too. I like the concept of that and weapon speed, and also certain spell having an initiative modifier. Ive forgotten exactly how they worked in those editions, though I do recall some extra calculations being involved that slowed combat down. Probably could be streamlined for implementation into 5E.

They have the variant speed factor rule in the DMG. Not as precise as AD&D, but good enough.

You could do something simple using weapon properties in 5E. Maybe something like heavy weapons gain a bonus against heavy armors/ACs, light weapons against light armor, etc.? I don't know, just a thought. I would have to work on it more to come up with something viable.

The weapon speed factor were actually quite easy to implement. It was the weapon vs armor that was quite a pain in the ass to implement.

How do you treat an ogre? Does he have the equivalent of hide armor? Is A dragon is really in plate equivalent? And a beholder? How about a skeleton? How do we treat the bones? Some creatures were clearly disadvantaged by the weapon vs armor rules and other were quite advantage (mainly dragon type with scales).

Yeah, the DM just had to rule if certain natural armors are equal to manufactured ACs.

 

[Helldritch]

In fact the sword was really effective on the battle field. Most opponents a sword wielder would face were peasants, bandits and people that did not have armor on. In these cases, the sword was more effective than a mace or an axe and a bit harder to deflect than a spear. The spear could have its shaft broken (cut in half) by a sharp edge sword. It maybe why the sword has such a good reputation.

But when facing a heavy armored opponent, the sword is a lot less useful. A morning star or a flail is way better against heavy armored (when they connect). And a man in heavy armor was just a wee bit hampered by it. The armored was tailored suit for the wearer and the weight of the armor was evenly distributed on the body. There are video on YouTube that shows a man in full plate making runs, rolls and jumps in one fluid motion sequence without much trouble. The armor was made with materials available in the appropriate era. Only the heavy armored cavalry had to be hauled on their horses as they were facing Awl Pikes that would use the momentum of cavalry to pierce right through the armored opponents/horses. Even then, the connection of the awl pike had to be almost perfect or it would be deflected without too much damage inflicted. The cavalry armor was heavier than a regular one (if I remember correctly, but I read that in an old book that I don't have. So I have to go from memories of 30+ years ago.) and more restrictive but the goal was to break the lines of the opponents.

 

[Helldritch]

They have the variant speed factor rule in the DMG. Not as precise as AD&D, but good enough.

You could do something simple using weapon properties in 5E. Maybe something like heavy weapons gain a bonus against heavy armors/ACs, light weapons against light armor, etc.? I don't know, just a thought. I would have to work on it more to come up with something viable.

Yep, maybe doing it by armor type like no armor/light, medium and heavy and by weapon class: Blunt, piercing, slashing and unarmed.
But in 5ed, the penalties and bonuses should not get higher than (+ or -) 2. Which would make it less savvy in my opinion.

Yeah, the DM just had to rule if certain natural armors are equal to manufactured ACs.

Yep, most animals had a hide equivalent (making bows/x bows really good against them). Reptile had the equivalent of scale mail. And others were about plate (but not field plate and full plate). But it could be worked out into something could be manageable.

 

[Morrus]

I dunno. While I agree that people clearly can move in armor, those guys in that video were moving more slowly and more clumsily than somebody without armor. The one guy did a forward roll and climbed over ladder, but I wouldn't say he did it dexterously. Armour might not be as restrictive as we often think, but it's clear at least a bit restrictive.

 

[Helldritch]

I dunno. While I agree that people clearly can move in armor, those guys in that video were moving more slowly and more clumsily than somebody without armor. The one guy did a forward roll and climbed over ladder, but I wouldn't say he did it dexterously. Armour might not be as restrictive as we often think, but it's clear at least a bit restrictive.

I'm not saying that it is not restrictive, it is. But it is a lot less than most people would think. I've had the chance of wearing one that was not really a good fit for me and I was surprised that I could move so easily. Of course it was not a perfect copy as it was made by the father of friend but I was really surprised how the weight was distributed. It was made out of steel and aluminum but it was close enough to give me a good appreciation of what was possible.

Armor does sacrifice a bit of mobility and agility in favor of more protection. But the loss is not as great as most people think.

 

[Morrus]

I'm not saying that it is not restrictive, it is. But it is a lot less than most people would think.

That's exactly what I just said.

 

[Helldritch]

Just saying that I was in complete agreement with you. Just in case some people might think I was saying that it was not restrictive.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Again, that is why we adjusted the rules for AC and armor slightly. If you have a DEX 18 or higher, you can even get a +2 AC bonus in heavy armor. We also have armor affect jumping distances, acrobatics, etc. by limiting the bonus you can apply.

 

[R_J_K75]

You could do something simple using weapon properties in 5E. Maybe something like heavy weapons gain a bonus against heavy armors/ACs, light weapons against light armor, etc.? I don't know, just a thought. I would have to work on it more to come up with something viable.

Yep, maybe doing it by armor type like no armor/light, medium and heavy and by weapon class: Blunt, piercing, slashing and unarmed.
But in 5ed, the penalties and bonuses should not get higher than (+ or -) 2. Which would make it less savvy in my opinion.

I agree that weapon class vs armor type is the way to go instead of individual pieces of equipment. I think simply getting advantage or disadvantage could do the trick although Im too lazy to give it much thought as to how to incorporate it into the game. Initiative is another thing but could probably be dealt with using advantage and disadvantage as well.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I would avoid advantage/disadvantage because those play into other features. For example, if you ruled finesse weapons have advantage against no- or light-armor, rogues would always be able to use sneak attack. I think a flat 1 (maybe 2) point to attacks would be better.

Maybe today I will look it over and see if I can devise a simple system.

 

[Helldritch]

I can relate to that. Advantage/disadvantage is a bit too much, especially with rogues. Also, I would've like to see the Dexterity score not being so prevalent in 5ed. Maybe something along applying the damage modifiers fully only on ranged weapons and half (rounded down) to melee weapons might have been a good idea.

 

[J-H]

Good video. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

At least we know you can't possibly swim in armor.

Historically people absolutely did intentionally swim in armour from time to time - but they used flotation aids in all the accounts I'm aware of, which RPGs typically completely overlook. In 5E you'd probably just give them advantage on the swimming check - which would probably compete with disadvantage so allow a flat roll (or just not make a check) because of the flotation aid.

What this video really reminds me of though is how in D&D, it's truly ridiculous that you gain little or no advantage from using appropriate weapons against appropriate foes. Really, big heavy spears, heavy axes, heavy picks and the like should be the weapon of choice against most larger monsters. If you were actually fighting, say, Giants, bringing a longsword to the party would be like being a child bringing a letter-opener to a swordfight with adults. Whereas a child with spear might actually be a threat. And trying to get through the hides of various creatures with swords and scimitars and so on? C'mon. At best you're going to break a wrist. You're going to use an axe or a pick (or perhaps a hammer), or again, a big spear, just one with a narrow, point-y head.

I'm not saying D&D needs to change, but I think the realities of full plate + longswords/bastard swords are a minor issue compared to "big spear" not being the main weapon adventurers use.

 

[R_J_K75]

I would avoid advantage/disadvantage because those play into other features. For example, if you ruled finesse weapons have advantage against no- or light-armor, rogues would always be able to use sneak attack. I think a flat 1 (maybe 2) point to attacks would be better.

I can relate to that. Advantage/disadvantage is a bit too much, especially with rogues. Also, I would've like to see the Dexterity score not being so prevalent in 5ed. Maybe something along applying the damage modifiers fully only on ranged weapons and half (rounded down) to melee weapons might have been a good idea.

I think that if I did incorporate a rule for this I don't think I would use it all the time. I'd probably save it for more important/challenging encounters to avoid slowing the game down.

 

[fearsomepirate]

I love this video. Just because modern engineering and science as we know them didn't really exist yet, we often underestimate the sophistication of both technology and technique used to pit young men in pitched battles to the death to decide which inbred aristocrat gets to wear the silly hat next.

 

[atanakar]

I think that if I did incorporate a rule for this I don't think I would use it all the time. I'd probably save it for more important/challenging encounters to avoid slowing the game down.

That is a good point. We ended up not using them because they slowed down the pace of combat.

 

[Oofta]

We had weapon speeds, weapons more effective against different types of armor, weapons more effective against larger opponents and so on long ago.

It was a cool idea that we ignored after trying it. I mean, it's great occasionally but what armor do monsters have? Does a heavily armored monster like a bullette count? Weapon speed didn't really change all that much after a round or so and damage vs size was just kind of finicky.

Which of course was just my experience. Easy enough to add some of that stuff back in. There's always going to be a balance between simplification and realistic.

 

[fearsomepirate]

I think it's because the concerns of a fantasy RPG rapidly diverge from those of a war game. If what we're doing is building armies to throw at each other in pitched battles, deciding how much of my budget to spend on the best armor, what sort of arrows to equip my archers with, what length the pikes should be, etc, are interesting decisions because the bulk of gameplay revolves around them.

But by the time we've moved away from that and into an RPG where we're often fighting faeries and slaads, or not even fighting at all, complex rules for resolving combat involving different types of sword feels unnecessary and cumbersome.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I would avoid advantage/disadvantage because those play into other features. For example, if you ruled finesse weapons have advantage against no- or light-armor, rogues would always be able to use sneak attack. I think a flat 1 (maybe 2) point to attacks would be better.

You'd also want to avoid making rulings based on categories like "finesse", because some of those weapons are going to be great against unarmoured targets (Scimitars, for example), and others would gain no particular edge (Daggers). It's more like slashing is best vs. light/no armour, piercing is designed, generally, to work around armour, as is crushing, and "military" weapons are more designed to deal with armour than non-military (which is somewhat close to the simple/martial categories in D&D).

And really it begs for more nuance. Hitting unarmoured peasants? A slashing sword will gain more from that scenario that a Battleaxe, which also does slash. Dealing with a dude in full plate? A warhammer is likely going to have a significantly better time than a mace. Chainmail got you down? A normal spear with a relatively broad head isn't going to compete with, say, a war-pick (which will probably go through it like it isn't even there). But Battleaxes are martial, as is a Longsword.

And we haven't even got to monsters yet, which probably the majority of attack rolls will be against!

I think you'd really have to start over, and characterize all armour types, and all monsters as having a specific kind of armour, then give weapons additional characteristics so they can match up against the armour types.

Then if you were me you'd do another pass and weapons under a certain length would give you disadvantage when fighting monsters over a certain size - except if you were climbing on them...

And basically by the end I'd be writing Dragon's Dogma, the pen and paper RPG.