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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Irda Ranger" data-source="post: 3889825" data-attributes="member: 1003">That's the same estimated range for the Roman Legionnaires too.  We can't say exactly what it all weighed, but between 65 lbs and 100 lbs are the most common guesses.My personal experience is limited to extended backpacking camping; never armor.  When I was in high school Boy Scouts my pack could weigh as much as 55 lbs, and that was heavy enough, but I was a pretty chubby kid, and not as fit or strong as I am now (and even today I am nowhere near as fit or strong as any well trained soldier; modern or historical).  Even then though I could sprint uphill for short distances.Probably the closest I've come (from a weight distribution p.o.v.) was the time was carrying around 40 lbs or so of rocks in the (many) pockets of my flak jacket and cargo pants (don't ask).  I kept up with everyone else just fine.I actually think the restrictions on battle movement are the most unrealistic.  Once you've developed the leg muscles for it, short sprints are not that effected by a weight you can lift.  Neither is the all-day walk; the human gait is fairly efficient pendulum, and most of the "cost" of a forward step is recovered on the swing of the pendulum.  It's really that middle ground (a half mile jog, say) that is most encumbered by weight.Again, all IMO, but I think some of the 'costs' of armor are overstated in D&D, and I would not mind a system where heavier armor was the 'obvious' choice for melee combatants.  That was simply the case historically, and armor did not fall out of favor until firearms became commonly available.  The "dualist" so popular in D&D really only existed in "civilized" contexts and the post-firearms world.  I think a heavy armor combatant is just "common sense" for someone who would be fighting orcs and monsters.</blockquote>

Verification