I'm running a Pirate-age game w/ FH&W. Many of the classes can wear heavy armor (>= chain). In Pirate stories, no one wears heavy armor, and if they do it doesn't matter because guns ignore primitive armor. So how do I balance out the classes that allow medium/heavy armor proficiency - that is, since we're playing in a Pirate game I'm nerfing that ability.

Initial thought: Natural +2/+3 replaces Medium/Heavy armor proficiency to represent combat skill.

I think period armor could actually stop early firearms. I remember watching an episode of The Deadliest Warrior about Musketeers and their armor (a curaiss) actually would stop a bullet

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHWQgelNNwg

27 minutes in. Granted, it's from a Chinese pole gun, but still, it stopped it.

Anyway, for a pirates campaign though, I'd start the AC at chain mail for warrior types and improve it by +1 every 2 levels (at 3rd, 5th, and so on). And for others, start at leather and improve by +1 every 3 levels

Quote from: PencilBoy99;868755In Pirate stories, no one wears heavy armor, and if they do it doesn't matter because guns ignore primitive armor. So how do I balance out the classes that allow medium/heavy armor proficiency

It might not even be necessary. Wearing a chainmail or platemail on a boat might be a bad idea if you fall in water... I wrote short rules about that in the adventure module "Jack Cade on London Bridge": basically, with such heavy armor you immediately sink to the sea's bottom floor. So, those who want to use a heavy armor aboard will run some risks of dreadful fate in exchange for the AC benefit. Furthermore, pirate stories generally occur on tropical islands, and wearing a heavy armor in such a damp and hot climate would quickly be inconvenient. Hence it should be a player's choice to wear armor or not (or maybe only inside the dreaded island's dungeon).

Note that in FH&W I introduced talents for everybody, and fighters can get combat specialties. It would be easy to invent a talent or combat specialty that grants an AC bonus.

It really depends on how gamist you want to be. The normal armor class spread represents (depending on how well you think the game was designed) the normal distribution of how hard to hit you want PCs and their opponents. If you kick everyone back to 9 or 10, modified by dex only, you have everyone having very similar ACs, changing combat in various ways. If you want to avoid this, allowing some combination of level and class choice to give players a Dodge Class instead is a good method of dealing with the situation.

On the other hand, you can say no plate mail in 9th century games, no armor in age of sail games, that's realism, deal with it. If you do, then people will probably focus on things other than armor to survive (I can imagine some very good tactics surrounding staying behind cover, but it will make for slow combats).

If normal armor stopped bullets, why did people stop wearing armor after firearms became common?

Plate can stop or deflect some but not all bullets. The angle of impact can make a big difference. Black powder era commanders and some soldiers often wore a breastplate and helmet but generally not full suits of plate. In a New World pirate setting, Spanish Conquistadors are a commonly-known example of men sporting breastplates and helmets in the New World. As for shipboard use, they are at least somewhat easier to get out of than a full suit of armor, if the prospect of falling in the water comes up.

Quote from: Turanil;868882It might not even be necessary. Wearing a chainmail or platemail on a boat might be a bad idea if you fall in water...

Well, if the tradition of sailors not knowing how to swim holds up, does it matter?

Quote from: Tod13;869249Well, if the tradition of sailors not knowing how to swim holds up, does it matter?

Okay for zero-level mariners.

However, PC can get a few skills/proficiencies, and many will probably want to get a Swimming skill/prof.

By the way: If nobody knows how to swim, it's then of utmost importance to not fall overboard. And I guess that when a boat/ship is moving, wearing a cumbersome plate armor is an increased chance to slip and fall overboard...

Quote from: Skarg;869246Plate can stop or deflect some but not all bullets. The angle of impact can make a big difference.

Yeah, all kind of things make a big difference - range, powder quality, angle of impact. Plus of course armour might be pistol-proof but not musket-proof.

In general though the rule of thumb is that a ball, even pistol, from a properly charged gun, striking normal plate armour dead on at close range is going to go through it. This meant that the inconvenience of armour generally outweighed the benefits, and it was progressively abandoned.

In D&D terms armour should probably still provide an AC benefit vs firearms, but reduced, especially at short range.

If your campaign pretty much has no armour (18th century Caribbean, say) then yes give classes with 'armour proficiency' something else in compensation; some skills perhaps, or a dodge bonus.

Quote from: S'mon;869329In general though the rule of thumb is that a ball, even pistol, from a properly charged gun, striking normal plate armour dead on at close range is going to go through it. This meant that the inconvenience of armour generally outweighed the benefits, and it was progressively abandoned.

The "rule" depends on the decade within the century. For several hundred years firearms and plate armor went back and forth, much like tanks and missiles/rockets today. Plate was often proofed against handguns and susceptible to muskets only at close range. (Round ball doesn't have decent ballistics coefficients.) Sometimes, the plate would be defeated, but the linen under the plate stopped the reduced velocity ball.

Quote from: S'mon;869329If your campaign pretty much has no armour (18th century Caribbean, say) then yes give classes with 'armour proficiency' something else in compensation; some skills perhaps, or a dodge bonus.

Regardless, if armor isn't desired, I think the dodge bonus is a good alternative.

Quote from: Tod13;869350The "rule" depends on the decade within the century. For several hundred years firearms and plate armor went back and forth, much like tanks and missiles/rockets today. Plate was often proofed against handguns and susceptible to muskets only at close range. (Round ball doesn't have decent ballistics coefficients.) Sometimes, the plate would be defeated, but the linen under the plate stopped the reduced velocity ball.

I saw some very interesting stuff on 'bulletproofing' - apparently almost* no plate armour was ever (pistol) bullet proof vs a fully charged pistol at point blank, so armourers would do their proofing before the unknowing customer with a reduced powder charge that still made a nice bang & dent, but no hole.

*There are rare examples of armour several times thicker than standard, and debate about the finest Maximilian plate possibly being pistol-bullet-broof. But standard armour never was.

Okay, here's my house rule:
1. heavy armor isn't available;
2. in light or no armor, classes w/ medium armor proficiency gain +1 to AC, classes w/ heavy armor proficiency gain +2 AC, to represent their greater combat skill
3. bullets vs armor work like they do in FH&W core - ac is ignored at close range

Quote from: PencilBoy99;868755I'm running a Pirate-age game w/ FH&W. Many of the classes can wear heavy armor (>= chain). In Pirate stories, no one wears heavy armor, and if they do it doesn't matter because guns ignore primitive armor. So how do I balance out the classes that allow medium/heavy armor proficiency - that is, since we're playing in a Pirate game I'm nerfing that ability.

Initial thought: Natural +2/+3 replaces Medium/Heavy armor proficiency to represent combat skill.

I'd do this: change the whole setup so that your unarmored AC is like this:

14-17, they hit you for 1/2 damage

18+ they hit you for full damage.

This value is modified by DEX, so if you have +2 dex they need 16 to do a half-hit and 20 to do a full hit.

Wearing any kind of armor gives you another +1.

something like that.

Quote from: PencilBoy99;869245If normal armor stopped bullets, why did people stop wearing armor after firearms became common?

Armies became mass affairs that a single person was paying for. Elite units still had some armour, like the Hussar.
In fact, Hussars were created as lightly armoured in the 16th . Some decades later they got heavier armour.
Here's a picture of a Hussar half armour from a museum.
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Zbroje_husarskie.JPG

In short, the reasons for the decline of Plate are much more complicated than guns making an appearance on the battlefield and plate becoming suddenly obsolete, and one might argue it wasn't plate, but the Knight class that declined.

Quote from: AsenRG;870511Armies became mass affairs that a single person was paying for. Elite units still had some armour, like the Hussar.
In fact, Hussars were created as lightly armoured in the 16th . Some decades later they got heavier armour.
Here's a picture of a Hussar half armour from a museum.
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Zbroje_husarskie.JPG

In short, the reasons for the decline of Plate are much more complicated than guns making an appearance on the battlefield and plate becoming suddenly obsolete, and one might argue it wasn't plate, but the Knight class that declined.

This. Good synopsis.

Remember, wars were often matters of, and paid for, by the king. During the King's War, one inventor or scientist wanted to consult with someone in the other country. He hopped a ship and went on over. I think he was delayed a couple days at the "enemy" port, while they sent for his bonafides, since he left without any paperwork at all. But the point being, non-war-related commerce and discourse continued without interference from the war.

You can also read Democracy: The God That Failed by Hans Herman-Hoppe. He's an economist who explains how the change from royalty owning land and financing the government and maintaining the kingdom for their heirs kept a cap on wars, since the king was limited by his cash and what he could convince the nobles of, and the expense of building and maintaining an army with expensive knights. With democracy came "unlimited" cash for wars from ridiculously increased taxes, upgraded even more by the looter mentality, since nobody would inherit the "kingdom".