Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Yuan-Ti" data-source="post: 200824" data-attributes="member: 4483">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...</blockquote>

Verification