Max Dex bonus restricts Dex to attack rolls.

[ThirdWizard]

Dex-based combatants are also less likely to be wearing heavy armor; historically, both in the real world and in fantasy role-playing worlds. I've yet to see an archer, a musketeer, or a swashbuckler wearing full plate armor, and even a ranger in same armor is a pretty rare occurance. Even samurai, who were certainly archers, did not really wear "heavy" armor. (Also, note the open-face helms of samurai armor, which did not interfere with their field of vision as did the closed-face, vented helms of European knights.)

You'll note that I didn't say wearing armor, I said encumbered.

A Str 8 character is encumbered at 27 pounds. A Str 10 character at 34. These numbers are easy to hit with normal gear and weapons. I had to work hard to keep my Thief (IH) character within the 33 pound barrier with 10 Str. An 8 Str Druid in another game found it impossible to not be medium encumbered with his 8 Str. That's a Max Dex of +3.

 

[General Barron]

Then why wasn't it a common battlefield practice for European knights in heavy armor to fire bows before proceeding into melee, as Japanese samurai did? It's not that the knights were unskilled with a bow, for hunting with a bow was a favorite pastime among knights.

I don't pretend to be an expert on medieval warfighting, but common sense tells me that it wouldn't make sense. Such armies would already have suitable numbers of archers with them--men who's sole specialty is to shoot the bow. Those archers would be the ones who fire at the enemy before engaging in melee. The medieval knight's job was to make a massive cavalry charge with lances, and literally crush through the enemy lines.

It's simple: two different jobs, two different people. That way the archers can specialize in shooting, and the knights in jousting. You don't have to worry about weighing the knight's horse down with a bunch of arrows and a bow; instead you turn that weight into heavier armor and weapons. You don't have to worry about armoring up the archers, because (a) they are peasants and their lives aren't important, and (b) they shouldn't be engaging in hand-to-hand fighting anyway.

That's not to say that the Western European method of warfighting was the best or only way to do it; however, the idea of a heavy cavalry charge as the defining force in combat was undeniably the way they thought. For an example of horse archers wearing heavy armor, look at cataphracs. Or if you want a fantasy-world example, just watch the LoTR movie; the human knights wear heavy armor AND use bows from horseback (never read the books, so don't know if it is the same).

Historically, heavy armor wasn't avoided because it 'reduced the accuracy' of ranged combatants; it was avoided because of it's expense or its weight.

Sources?

First, I forgot the other main reason for avoiding heavy armor: it's hot. Obviously not a big deal in temperate climates like western europe, but in places like the middle east or north africa, it clearly makes a huge difference. I hope I won't have to work harder than that to prove this point. But most DnD campaigns are set in temperate climates anyway, so I won't tarry on that point.


Medieval men-at-arms (that is, the infantry and archers recruited from the peasant classes) had to provide their own equipment (so did the knights actually, but theirs was paid for by the peasants working for them). Many armies throughout history have been the same way: it being up to the individual soldier to provide their own gear. Anyone who has a small knowledge of military history knows this. I couldn't point exactly where I learned this, because it could have been from a class or a documentary or a book or any other number of things. Hopefully this point will not be debated.

An earlier example of such an army can be found in ancient Rome. Here is a link about the Marius Reforms, during which the Roman armies transformed from being a 'BYOG' (bring your own gear) style army ("Each soldier in the maniple system provided his own gear and armor, resulting in wide ranges in quality and completeness."), into one that was equipped by the state. After those reforms, auxilary troops (that is, skirmishers and archers) generally were equipped with lorica hamata, or chain mail.


Now, given that a medieval peasant had to supply his own equipment, should I really have to work hard to convince you that the standard serf wouldn't be able to afford a suit of full plate? Lesser armor, such as gambeson, or at best brigandine, would be about the most a serf could afford.


Let's look at it from another perspective: archers didn't really 'aim' at targets; they pretty much just pointed the bow in the air and shot at the general area of the other guys (creating the so-called "cloud of arrows" that devastated the French knights at battles like Agincourt). Even if armor does 'interfere with their aim' so heavily, the archers aren't really aiming, so why wouldn't you equip them with armor? The reason,again, is simply an economic one.


As for skirmishers, again, common sense prevails here. If your job was to run in front of the enemy and throw a spear in his face, wouldn't you want to be able to run back to safety as quickly as possible? Or at least you would want to be able to run faster than the other guy. Hence you wouldn't want to be weighed down by a bunch of armor--or at least be less weighed down than him.

Medieval Japanese were able to craft breastplates and other armor pieces of plate. Why, then, was the rest of their armor composed of fine chainmail and silk padding? Well, because, they did not want their armor to impair their ability with the bow; nor, for that matter, did they want to impair their ability with the katana (which, truth be told, uses a fighting style that is more based on Dex than Str).

Taking your word that they had the technology, I'm still not buying your conclusion that it was to let them shoot a bow better. I will buy the part about the sword, and I'll say more on that later. However, the Samurai still wore lamellar armor made of bands or scales of metal covering the vital portions of the body, which in my book qualifies as significant armor; at least enough to be described as 'medium' in DnD terms. Armor made this way (that is, not full plates of metal) WAS the heaviest armor that could be made up until ~13th C, when metallurgy allowed plate armor to be created.

Having worn a couple of types of armour (for a lark, not something I've done since, btw) and having used various bows (something I have an ongoing commitment to doing), I would say it's highly likely that heavier armour *would* reduce accuracy (and probably ROF) significantly.

Would wearing armor impair your ability to fire a bow, crossbow, etc; or your ability to throw a javelin, axe, etc? The answer of course is yes, just like anything else that restricts movement, such as clothing. The question, however, is how much it restricts it. I don't think would be enough to warrant game penalties. The supporters of this rule think it would be. To them I ask this simple question:

Would wearing armor impair your ability to hit an opponent in melee combat? The answer again, of course, is YES. So now I ask you this:

Which of the two would it impair MORE? This is the most important question. Having worn a few types of armor myself, having fought with a few types of melee styles, and having shot a few types of bows and guns, I personally would say that your ability to move freely is FAR more important to melee combat than it is to shooting a bow or rifle.

So, unless you are willing to make armor limit your abilities in melee combat as well (and not just characters with weapon finesse), then I would advise against this rule on realism grounds. Game-balance grounds against this rule have already been well laid out.

-------------

Personally, here is what I would do: I would make ALL combat based on dex AND str (maybe 1/2 your bonus from each). This makes sense for melee combat, since it takes both strength to swing the weapon around, AND agility to out meneuver your opponent. For ranged combat, remember that an attack roll includes both the ability to make the projectile actually strike the enemy (dexterity), AND the ability to penetrate his armor (strength). The str part makes clear sense for bows and thrown weapons, where your strength determines how fast the projectile is thrown; for crossbows or firearms, you could simply say that the weapon itself has a strength rating, which is used in place of the shooters (this would also let you simulate the armor-piercing effects of these weapons by giving them high STR bonuses).

Next, I would eliminate the 'max dex bonus' and ACP. Instead, I would turn the ACP into a 'dex penalty'; that is, wearing the armor would lower your dex by that amount; and thus lower all things affected by your dex bonus. If this causes you to have a dex penalty, then so be it: overall your AC will only increase from wearing armor. Fighting ability may suffer, but only by 1/2 as much, since bonuses come from both STR and DEX.

Those rules would be simpler and make more logical sense than what you are trying to implement. Basically, if you are going for realism, I don't know why you are choosing to penalize the things least-affected by wearing armor (shooting ability), and leaving the most-affected things alone (fighting and dodging ability).


EDIT

Heh, ran into this interesting little article on paper armor. Maybe a new addition to DnD?

 

[Aus_Snow]

For an example of horse archers wearing heavy armor, look at cataphracs.

Fair call. Although, what they call 'heavy armour' is certainly not heavy armour in D&D terms. Medium. . . perhaps.

Or if you want a fantasy-world example, just watch the LoTR movie; the human knights wear heavy armor AND use bows from horseback (never read the books, so don't know if it is the same).

I can't remember whether that was detailed, and if so, whether that scenario occured.

First, I forgot the other main reason for avoiding heavy armor: it's hot.

Yes. Something GMs should keep in mind.

After those reforms, auxilary troops (that is, skirmishers and archers) generally were equipped with lorica hamata, or chain mail.

Again, not exactly 'heavy armour' per se. Even so, you have a good point here.

Now, given that a medieval peasant had to supply his own equipment, should I really have to work hard to convince you that the standard serf wouldn't be able to afford a suit of full plate? Lesser armor, such as gambeson, or at best brigandine, would be about the most a serf could afford.

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

archers didn't really 'aim' at targets; they pretty much just pointed the bow in the air and shot at the general area of the other guys (creating the so-called "cloud of arrows" that devastated the French knights at battles like Agincourt). Even if armor does 'interfere with their aim' so heavily, the archers aren't really aiming, so why wouldn't you equip them with armor? The reason,again, is simply an economic one.

Hm. This doesn't quite translate so well into the D&D framework. Archers in D&D (generally) aim at specific targets and, surprisingly often, hit them.

If your job was to run in front of the enemy and throw a spear in his face, wouldn't you want to be able to run back to safety as quickly as possible? Or at least you would want to be able to run faster than the other guy. Hence you wouldn't want to be weighed down by a bunch of armor--or at least be less weighed down than him.

Agreed. I think the movement penalties for heavier armours in D&D make sense, when simple truths such as these are considered.

Would wearing armor impair your ability to hit an opponent in melee combat? The answer again, of course, is YES.

I agree, yes.

Which of the two would it impair MORE? This is the most important question. Having worn a few types of armor myself, having fought with a few types of melee styles, and having shot a few types of bows and guns, I personally would say that your ability to move freely is FAR more important to melee combat than it is to shooting a bow or rifle.

Hm. I can see what you mean, definitely. However, an equally persuasive argument (I think) is that in ranged combat, the margin of error is so much greater than in melee. When someone is right in front of you, it's a lot easier to hit at generally the right area, so to speak. The further away a target, the more likely it is that any given (non-guided) attack form will miss. There's truth on both sides of it, which makes that one a bit tricky.

Personally, here is what I would do:
*snip*

Nice! Now you've got me seriously considering something like those rules. Curses!

paper armor.

Very interesting indeed.


Thanks for posting an informative 'essay' there. I can certainly see it shedding a bit more light on some of the issues raised so far, and I'm curious to see what others might have to say, too.

 

[Murrdox]

Hmm. Don't know why I assumed that.

Well, ya know my biting sarcasm just doesn't translate into text that well.

ANYWAYS, I can't remember my exact Ranger build, I'll try and reconstruct it. I do know that I didn't have a Mithril Shirt.... I think I had +2 studded leather or something like that. I'll post a stat block later if I can figure out what my character was. This was from ~3 years ago, we were still on 3.0.

 

[Azlan]

For an example of horse archers wearing heavy armor, look at cataphracs.

Fair call. Although, what they call 'heavy armour' is certainly not heavy armour in D&D terms. Medium. . . perhaps.

I'd say light. The armor in that example is scalemail. (But are the scales composed of metal or hard leather?) The archer is wearing a scale hauberk that stops at the elbows and above the knees. He's wearing a pot helm, with no protection for his face or the sides of his head, but also with no impairment to his vision.

Surely, this armor is equivelent in encumbrance to a chain shirt, which in D&D is light armor. With a Max. Dex Bonus of +4, the vast majority of bowmen would not be limited by this armor, since very few human archers would have a Dex above 19.

 

[Azlan]

Would wearing armor impair your ability to hit an opponent in melee combat? The answer again, of course, is YES.

Only if you were armed with a melee weapon requiring an agile fighting style, with lots of feints and parries, such as a rapier. (Thus, you'd be using Weapon Finesse and your Dex, to hit with.) But if you're slugging away with a greatsword or a morningstar (thus using your Str, to hit with), your ability to hit an opponent would not be significantly impaired. (At least, not enough to bother bringing into game terms.)

 

[genshou]

Only if you were armed with a melee weapon requiring an agile fighting style, with lots of feints and parries, such as a rapier. (Thus, you'd be using Weapon Finesse and your Dex, to hit with.) But if you're slugging away with a greatsword or a morningstar (thus using your Str, to hit with), your ability to hit an opponent would not be significantly impaired. (At least, not enough to bother bringing into game terms.)

I'll argue with this one. I train using two-handed swords unarmored, and I am very fast. Put me in armor that restricts my freedom of movement, and I'm sure that would no longer be the case. I've noticed that to be the case with my opponents in mock battles. Armor restricts movement. Movement is required to be effective even with heavy, bashing weapons. If you can't move, you can't swing as easily.

 

[Aus_Snow]

I'd say light.

Sounds fair to me, hence the ". . . perhaps" part of that post. I should've italicized the "perhaps", perhaps.

If you can't move, you can't swing as easily.

That's the crux of it.

Which, all in all, goes further toward showing that D&D is not overly 'realistic' - wasn't designed to be, mind you - and that it presents some fairly difficult issues when being remoulded into that kind of shape.


Does anyone know of a d20 historical/fantasy/other project dedicated to realism in the ruleset? If so, please point the way, because the more I've thought about that prospect lately, the more it's appealed.

 

[Andelas]

I don't think many of you realize exactly how flexible, and well designed plate mail actually was. Truth be told, neither did I in fact, until a freind of mine, who is big into the SCA, did cartwheelss in his. Not one mind you...several.

Check out the work that Museum Replicas limited is doing in conjunction with the Tower of London. The Tower of London is doing a great deal of work at recreating the fighting styles in use during medeival times, from the actual manuals that the various fighting schools and such used back then.

There is a fairly common mistake made when dealing with plate mail armor, and that is that most of us assume that full plate would be the suits of extremely heavy plate that is used in jousts. The jousting plate was far heavier than normal plate mail, and was useless for anything but a joust. Some of these suits where so heavy that the wearer had to be literally winched up onto his horse. Anyone stupid enough to use that in an actuall battle would have been helpless once he was unhorsed.

Keep in mind that one of the tests for an aspiring knight was swimming in his armor, and then think about how flexible that armor would have to be in order to do so.

Last note, and you are incorrect about archers being peasents. The English archer was a highly trained, and extremely accurate combatant. Peasents where... discouraged fron owning longbows. Hard for the Noble to properly lord it over his inferiors if they could shoot him off his horse from a 100 yards off, eh? One of the reasons that the crossbow had such a huge effect upon medeival society was that it too was capable of punching through heavy armor, but it required very little skill or training to use properly. The advent of the crossbow, and later on, the firearm is what really put an end to fuedalism in Europe.

 

[genshou]

Correct this one is (at least IME). By the way, Andelas, welcome to the EN World forums!