Sorting armor by effectiveness

[cavetroll]

Does this look decent, as a generic list of armor sorted by effectiveness (not D&D specific)

(weakest)
LEATHER
STUDDED LEATHER
SCALE
RING MAIL
LAMELLAR
BRIGANDINE
CHAIN MAIL
PLATE MAIL
SPLINT
FULL PLATE

Does anything stand out as being out of order?

thanks!

Updated 4/21

 

[TarionzCousin]

Do you want pre-medieval armor? Roman? Gladiators? Bronze?
How about partial armor, like only a breastplate?
And plate that is less than full plate? "Half Plate"?

 

[Kobold Stew]

My sense is there's too much here. If this is in a game context, there's a risk of too much granularity, which gives a false sense of the differential.

In D&D there are a number of vectors that are represented: AC, smoothness of movement (i.e. whether it causes disadvantage on stealth*), proficiency and STR requirements (as well as weight and cost, which I won't consider here).

* My thinking on this particular vector has led me to two house rules:
1. Armors that cause disadvantage for stealth also affect swimming/climbing checks.
2. Characters get no benefits from long rest if sleeping in medium or heavy armour.

Depending on the mechanism used to hit, what other variables you are introducing, even this list may be way too much. I'd suggest you could reduce the list without losing meaningful granularity. Here, for example, is a list of six for your ten:

LEATHER
SCALE (need not use metal, but can)
CHAIN (covers whole body)
[BREASTPLATE] (covers just torso, keeps easy movement)
LAMELLAR/BRIGANDINE/SPLINT (keeping them separate adds to the perceived effectiveness of Plate)
PLATE ("FULL PLATE")

Other things to consider:
HELMETS -- The One Ring has a great rule that in D&D might be: you get AC+1, but if you take your helmet off during combat you get 2xPB THP. It's heroic!
SHIELDS -- I like a bit more granularity with shields as well. I think a +1 Buckler can be used by anyone, (+2 shields, and if you have shield proficiency you can use other things (lantern, off-hand dagger, cloak) as a buckler. (Tower shields are a different thing again.)

 

[cavetroll]

Do you want pre-medieval armor? Roman? Gladiators? Bronze?
How about partial armor, like only a breastplate?
And plate that is less than full plate? "Half Plate"?

I don't think I need bronze, it doesn't fit into my high fantasy setting as much. I might add partial items later, like a single breast plate or helm but I'm on the fence as to whether I want that complexity.

 

[cavetroll]

My sense is there's too much here.

Good points in your post, appreciate it. I haven't decided on what benefits one armor may give over the other beyond some obvious ones for very light or very heavy armor. I'm guessing cost will be the main thing. Helmet and breastplate probably are good single items, I think I will add. I do have shields, buckler and large, I agree with our comments.


Do you agree though in the overall order e.g. chain is better than brigandine which is better than lamellar which is better than ring?

thanks!

I like looking through all the options when you building your starter character, deciding on this and that, the longer list makes it more fun. Of course picking weapons and armor becomes less important past first or second level.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Do you agree though in the overall order e.g. chain is better than brigandine which is better than lamellar which is better than ring?

I tried to suggest that chain/ring < lammelar/brigandine (and I don't see a meaningful separation between those pairs at the level of granularity we are talking of) -- I think it would be more meaningful to differentiate by quality or metal, etc. There's too many variables.

(There's some problem with the idea of ring armour archaeologically, but I'm not an expert).

 

[cavetroll]

I tried to suggest that chain/ring < lammelar/brigandine (and I don't see a meaningful separation between those pairs at the level of granularity we are talking of) -- I think it would be more meaningful to differentiate by quality or metal, etc. There's too many variables.

(There's some problem with the idea of ring armour archaeologically, but I'm not an expert).

Ok great, I'll do some more research, thanks!

 

[cavetroll]

I tried to suggest that chain/ring < lammelar/brigandine (and I don't see a meaningful separation between those pairs at the level of granularity we are talking of) -- I think it would be more meaningful to differentiate by quality or metal, etc. There's too many variables.

(There's some problem with the idea of ring armour archaeologically, but I'm not an expert).

Alright, I got this, slimmed down and chain < brig. You can't add a breastplate/helm to heavy armor.

TR=

 

[Jd Smith1]

Material isn't the same as armor. Not a lot of warriors in medieval times could afford sets; instead, they wore a mixture of old and new, and were always on the lookout for armor.

Mail was also hardly uniform; the number of rings that interlocked determined its protective value.

Full plate emerged only at the very end of the medieval period.

 

[Thunderfoot]

Also, you don't have Padded/Quilted.

For the poor peasant conscript, a hastily stitched multi-layered surcoat by the missus was better than nothing.
For the noble, wearing an arming coat in the evening during times of strife is better than trying to don armor for a sudden attack.

Both of the above examples are anecdotally historical.