Sorting armor by effectiveness

Studded Leather was never a thing as far as I can tell.
It's well documented in Byzantium in the 6th to 9th C CE. Bezanted is a form of studded - using coins or coin-shaped blanks.

It's not common in Europe, but not unknown. Directly comparable is ring on leather and ring on quilt.
Combination armours were a thing, like mail over gambeson (padded) or Brigandine over mail over a padded arming jacket.
You almost never would wear any metallic armors without a gambeson or jack. That's not "combination" armor, that's just an essential part of the harness.
Unless you like crescent shaped bruises and/or cuts. (Seen enough of them. None my own.)
Same is true for gloves and articulated gauntlets - the leather protects from the edges of the metal armor; it's not an increase in the armor's protection, it's protection from the protection.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


I'd be more inclined to go with three types - Light, Medium, Heavy - and list some examples in each category from round the world that would fit that category, then let people describe it however they like. So for instance, the Light armour category would include the European Jack, Aztec cotton armour, Chinese paper armours, and perhaps some ancient world armours like Egyptian leather and metal straps, the tiny breastplates strapped on to poorer Roman hastati, the think coats worn by steppe nomads, and so on. That's if you're going to go with full sets, as opposed to individual pieces (while the latter is more accurate to history it's a lot of work).
That Aztec armor was stopping arrows and musket balls. It's really more medium than light, same with those full body gambesons. Its easy to fall into thinking that metal armor is automatically better/higher AC, but those things were proto-Kevlar.
 



Its a fantasy place, fantasy time and fantasy culture.
Right, but what place, time and culture? Just because a setting is fictional, does not mean it is arbitrary. A ranger from Eriador is equipped differently from a Melnibonean noble, or a green Martian warrior, or a Mahar of Pellucidar.
 

Right, but what place, time and culture? Just because a setting is fictional, does not mean it is arbitrary. A ranger from Eriador is equipped differently from a Melnibonean noble, or a green Martian warrior, or a Mahar of Pellucidar.
Well its high fantasy with a grim dark twist so no guns. Not at the stage of deciding on setting, but even if I did it would that would be for an adventure not the core rules which are to be generic enough. I'm just want the starter armor and weapons not to raise red flags, like accidentally making plate mail less useful than chain mail. Maybe the list can be expanded later, if it serves a purpose.

Edit. As I move forward in the writing, I think the rules are going to reflect a particular setting. It feels more "real" that way.
 
Last edited:


Well its high fantasy with a grim dark twist so no guns. Not at the stage of deciding on setting, but even if I did it would that would be for an adventure not the core rules which are to be generic enough. I'm just want the starter armor and weapons not to raise red flags, like accidentally making plate mail less useful than chain mail. Maybe the list can be expanded later, if it serves a purpose.
Pick a period and a region and the decisions are made for you. Weapons and armour will be matched together.
 


Remove ads

Top