The Grim-n-Gritty Rules

[mmadsen]

Longbow vs. Plate

While I can see it being somewhat less effective against plate, it should absolutely not be useless against it.

I was researching just this issue over on the NetSword site, and it seems that a longbow arrow -- an "armor piercing" bodkin -- has basically no chance of piercing plate armor.

It can find a joint or an eye-slit, but it can't puncture a breastplate, even with a direct hit at close range.

Then we've got crossbows, which tore through plate armor rather handily at close range. And plate armor was never able to stand up to firearms. That's why heavy armor went out of style.

Are you completely denying the concept of "armor of proof" then?

Heavy plate armor is prohibitively expensive, and if a cheap soldier with a cheap weapon has the same offensive capabilities -- or even greater, due to greater mobility -- it makes economic sense to buy such "inferior" soldiers.

 

[mmadsen]

In looking at the Grim-n-Gritty combat rules again, I notice a few things. First, as I said before, they're not particularly grim at all, except that (a) even "cannon fodder" enemies have enough Hit Points and DR to last awhile, so you can't Cleave through waves of Orcs, and (b) large enemies that deal large damage will kill even high-level heroes if they hit.

My real issue with Grim-n-Gritty, as implemented, is that it's yet another instance of "realistic" being used to mean "complicated". A system with armor-as-DR and fewer Hit Points does not have to be complicated.

 

[Micar Sin]

On the subject of long bows... To my knowledge, a cloth yard shaft COULD penetrate plate, but only under a particular circumstance. THe arrow had to be fired UP and then arched down onto teh target to add velocity to the arrow. A direct shot at close range by a long bow would dent the armor, but thats it. That is part of the reason training with long bows was more intensive... They aren't 'direct-fire' in the way crossbows are, at least as far as heavy armor is concerned...

 

[mmadsen]

THe arrow had to be fired UP and then arched down onto teh target to add velocity to the arrow.

I don't want to turn this into a physics discussion (or even an archery discussion), but an arrow most certainly would not gain energy or velocity by being fired up so that it could come down. Even firing an arrow straight down wouldn't add much energy or velocity.

 

[LGodamus]

on piercing full plate

armor was at its heaviest near the beginning of the renaissance, and at that time it was quite common to "proof test" armor by firing a musket at it from point blank range...if it pierced the armor was considered inferior and was scrapped. This only applies to the breast plate and helm of course , as other supplemental armor really didn't gain much thickness. contrary to popular belief firearms only caused the decline of armor indirectly. It wasn't overnight people just said hey our armor sucks against guns lets quit using it. It became an arms race of sorts with armor getting better as guns increased in firepower, so at any given period the newest armor was impenetrable by a firearm in the killing zones of a human body, but it became increasingly more expensive and difficult to keep redesigning what was already costly armor. Then plate armor would have been quite an investment, much like buying a rolls royce or some such nowadays....so its easy to see why it became too costly to keep upgrading your armor everytime someone made a bigger badder caliber of gun.

 

[Yuan-Ti]

Not to turn this into a ballistics discussion... damn, too late. But here are my two cents, take them for what they are worth. Part of this discussion is created by the fact that generic D&D does not tell us what period of real world history is equivalent in terms of tech.

Longbow vs. plate: using the bodkin point the longbow was perfectly capable of piercing plate armor at the time in which the longbow was considered ascendant on the battlefield. To my recollection, this was only at short ranges, using the bodkin point. More importantly, this was prior to dramatic improvements in plate armor in the late 1300s and 1400s, partly to offset the chance of a longbow bodkin piercing heavy armor. Of course, the longbow was effective as a battlefield weapon because 500 men firing arrows into a mass of 300 charging French knights are going to cause casualties by hitting joints in the armor, joints in the horses' armor, causing riders to fall off tripping horses, causing horses to go down or rear up, disrupting the charge and knocking knights onto the ground where they could not get up (yes, if you are modelling plate armor that resists longbows, you should consider telling your fighters they can't move as fast as the rules allow and certain feats are impossible in plate armor and if they fall down they need help getting up -- certainly this type of armor does not allow for a +1 DEX bonus!). At Crecy (or was it Poitiers?) many French knights apparently drowned in the mud or were killed by the archers using knives and axes after Henry gave the order.

Firearms vs. Plate armor: To keep this in perspective we should remember that Napoleon's Cuirassiers wore heavy breast plates which could stop musket fire, even at close range. Armor recovered from the battlefield often showed that the rider had been killed by hits to the head or bled to death from hits to legs and arms, while his armor was covered in splashes of lead where the musketballs struck the cuirass. Against well armored knights in the Italian wars (late 1400s, early 1500s), the firearms being used there en masse were mainly effective "en masse". The armor could stop them but several hundred pieces of lead coming at you are bound to find a weak spot on you or your mount.

What does this mean for D&D? Well, a DM should probably make a decision about how tough that plate armor really is in his world. If it can stop longbows and crossbows, then it can only be worn by mounted knights and once down on the ground, the wearer needs help getting up. If, on the other hand, it is as lightweight and flexible as the PHB suggests, then there is no way it would stop a longbow from penetrating some of the time, though it is still effective as a way to deflect away arrows.

Just some thoughts...

 

[Darkness]

Weren't longbowmen supposed to be very strong - and thus possibly using something more akin to composite longbows under D&D, complete with Str bonus (say, +1 to +2 or so)?
Also, they might have feats (e.g., Point Blank Shot) that give damage bonuses...

 

[mmadsen]

Weren't longbowmen supposed to be very strong - and thus possibly using something more akin to composite longbows under D&D, complete with Str bonus (say, +1 to +2 or so)?

It makes no sense at all that only composite longbows can by "mighty" in D&D. Any kind of bow can have an easy pull or a hard pull. Odysseus's bow wasn't hard to string and pull because it was a mighty composite longbow.

Anyway, yes, English longbowmen were extremely strong, well-conditioned men. In D&D, they should probably be Str 14 or higher, with "mighty" bows.

 

[Desdichado]

mouseferatu:
Actually, that's not entirely accurate.

The English longbow was quite capable of punching through armor, although it was designed more for use against chain than plate, given the era it first came into common use. While I can see it being somewhat less effective against plate, it should absolutely not be useless against it.

Then we've got crossbows, which tore through plate armor rather handily at close range. And plate armor was never able to stand up to firearms. That's why heavy armor went out of style.

Actually, that's not entirely accurate, as has been pointed out here already. Different types of armor had different strategies of protection, which made them better (or worse) at different types of damage reduction.

Chain mail operates by spreading the force of the blow. Against piercing weapons, it's not particularly effective. That's why, in the early middle ages (and prior to the middle ages) you saw soldiers wear scale cuirasses over their mail armor: that was much better deflecting arrows. Plate armor operates on much the same principle as scale armor on how it defeats the force of an incoming attack, therefore it was also fairly good against projectile attack, including firearms.

 

[kengar]

Re: Longbow vs. Plate

It can find a joint or an eye-slit, but it can't puncture a breastplate, even with a direct hit at close range.

In other words, a Critical Hit?