Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Enkhidu" data-source="post: 1228736" data-attributes="member: 351">With all due respect, this isn't exactly true. While a person in up to 60 pounds of gear certainly won't move quite as quickly as if they were unencumbered, armor (especially plate armor circa late 1300s and onward) had weight distributed in such a way that it rested on various parts of the body. For example, a chain hauberk rested on both the shoulders and the waist/hips if worn properly (with a strong and wide belt), while a late period plate harness rested on shoulders, hips, arms, and legs. This distribution of weight allowed people to have only slightly slower movements than an unarmored counterpart (assuming that both were otherwise healthy and hardy specimens).   However, you are not incorrect in assuming that wearing armor does get you hit more often. Its a simple matter of torso and joint flexibility. While an unarmored fighter could bend shoulder and torso away from a potentially harmful blow, a heavily armored fighter simply does not have the range of motion required for that movement, and as such relies on a combination of the armor and whatever skill he has in rolling with a blow.</blockquote>