Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="General Barron" data-source="post: 2683803" data-attributes="member: 32468">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 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cataphracts" target="_blank">cataphracs</a>. 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).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 <a href="http://www.unrv.com/empire/marius-reforms-legions.php" target="_blank">Marius Reforms</a>, 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 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorica_hamata" target="_blank">lorica hamata</a>, 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 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambeson" target="_blank">gambeson</a>, or at best <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigandine" target="_blank">brigandine</a>, 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 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skirmisher" target="_blank">skirmishers</a>, 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.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.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).EDITHeh, ran into this interesting little article on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_Armour" target="_blank">paper armor</a>. Maybe a new addition to DnD?  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /></blockquote>

Verification