Low armor campaigns, why "compensate"?

[WizarDru]

Non-use of armor in duels was a matter of social convention, and only the monumentally ignorant would conclude that the rapier or "swashbuckling" could somehow "defeat" the armor of its day or that a "swashbuckler" was somehow innately better protected against the threat posed by his enemy than would be a man in armor.

Armor was NOT defeated by the rapier, it was defeated by the gun.

Wow. From zero to RUDE in 60 one paragraph. Is there a reason you feel the need to start calling people "monumentally stupid"? It certainly isn't necessary.

That said, I'm not sure you got my point, there. A chain shirt was not as effective against a rapier as it was a mace, but the d20 system assumes that there is no variance from damage types and that all attacks...nor was it designed to have such. A rapier should be much more effective against a chain shirt than a mace, but the system doesn't refelct that...and frankly shouldn't, as it adds even more detail without really increasing the amount of fun. Some people don't agree with that, which is what I thought you were asking. If you want me to argue the relative merits of that concept, then maybe I wasn't clear...I don't advocate it.

I certainly never implied that armor was defeated by the rapier, so I'm not really sure where you got that idea.

 

[Dogbrain]

And who's talking about a "sophisticated parry and dodge system"? It's a Class Defense Bonus we're talking about, about as "sophisticated" and complex as BAB and save bonuses

Why is it necessary in the first place? Games only become a "mess" with poor armor available when the players play like blind-charging boneheads.

 

[Dogbrain]

Wow. From zero to RUDE in 60 one paragraph. Is there a reason you feel the need to start calling people "monumentally stupid"? It certainly isn't necessary.

Quote specifically where I did so--use direct quotations. There is a difference between stupidity and ignorance. The latter can be cured unless it is wilful, at which point it becomes the former.

That said, I'm not sure you got my point, there. A chain shirt was not as effective against a rapier as it was a mace

It was sufficiently effective that it was considered to be effective by PROFESSIONAL SWORDSMEN. But, of course, the actual recorded experience of those who lived by the sword means nothing to some people when it comes to speculating on the effects of armor vs. some types of swords.

A rapier should be much more effective against a chain shirt than a mace,

And you are basing this upon how much experience? Or is it merely idle speculation? Gentlemen of the rapier era WOULD WEAR CHAIN SHIRTS TO PROTECT THEMSELVES AGAINST RAPIERS. When will you get that through your head?

 

[mmu1]

Why is it necessary in the first place? Games only become a "mess" with poor armor available when the players play like blind-charging boneheads.

Because it lets people play the game how they like it (charging if they're so inclined) not how some self-important blowhard thinks they should play it.

 

[WizarDru]

Quote specifically where I did so--use direct quotations. There is a difference between stupidity and ignorance. The latter can be cured unless it is wilful, at which point it becomes the former.

Never mind.

 

[barsoomcore]

Why is it necessary in the first place?

Only the monumentally ignorant would even ask this question.

I've already explained why it's necessary:

Barsoom is a low-armour world because I think that's cool.

Any further questions? I think we're done here.

 

[aurance]

Wow, this thread went down fast. I think I'm done too.

 

[Kormydigar]

Quote specifically where I did so--use direct quotations. There is a difference between stupidity and ignorance. The latter can be cured unless it is wilful, at which point it becomes the former.



It was sufficiently effective that it was considered to be effective by PROFESSIONAL SWORDSMEN. But, of course, the actual recorded experience of those who lived by the sword means nothing to some people when it comes to speculating on the effects of armor vs. some types of swords.




And you are basing this upon how much experience? Or is it merely idle speculation? Gentlemen of the rapier era WOULD WEAR CHAIN SHIRTS TO PROTECT THEMSELVES AGAINST RAPIERS. When will you get that through your head?

Actually a chain shirt would not be all that terribly effective against a thrusting rapier or a mace. Chain armor was designed primarily designed to protect against a cutting weapon such as a broadsword or an axe. The protection it offered against thrusting and mass bludgeoning weapons was minimal. I have crafted chain armor pieces of different qualities, and it would take an incredibly tight and dense weave to provide GOOD protection against a rapier or spear.

 

[Umbran]

When will you get that through your head?

Perhas when you give a citation or other evidence, rather than merely assert and insist that others are "monumentally ignorant".

Monumental ignorance comes from not knowing something that is easy to find. But this little tidbit isn't. There aren't all that many direct quotes from period swordsmen floating around. You don't run into them in your normal history class. If you've got one, show it. It'd convince far more quickly than your current aggressive stance. Try to educate, rather than browbeat into submission, hm?

 

[DaveStebbins]

Well, there are certain balance issues. Some classes in the default game are given proficiency feats in medium and heavy armors. If a player chooses to ignore these feats, I don't feel a need to compensate him or her at all. However, if I were to take these feats away and say no medium or heavy armors are available in my campaign, my sense of fairness and game balance would dictate adding something as compensation.

YMMV and all that, but that's why I would (or would not, depending upon the situation) compensate characters for the lack of certain armors.