This is an interesting one to me as up till recently when I saw a video demonstration of various armours I had not really thought on it and then realized that there was a certain pattern from one campaign to the next. Watching the video I was rather surprised at just how darn good scale mail is and the fact that even fairly basic studded leather is pretty effective.
That being that overall I tend to have a sort of cut off point in most campaigns at around chainmail. With scalemail being probably the most common of the "upper tier" protection. Top end being the rare suits of splint/plated mail. Full plate might as well have not existed. I think because it just did not fit the sorts of settings I usually run. Which very often lean to the mid-fantasy or even the low fantasy side. Especially in D&D.
So what sorts of armour in a fantasy setting do you allow as a DM or have seen as a player? Do you have, or have seen, a cut off point and why?
Quote from: Omega;1042365even fairly basic studded leather is pretty effective.
Because it's actually brigandine, with overlapping metal plates sandwiched between sheets of leather? No such thing as studded leather armour - even leather alone was very rare as armour, since thick layers of cloth are generally much better.
I generally allow whatever armour's in the book. I may describe it differently according to the setting - in my Wilderlands game 'half plate' is generally bronze armour; in my Karameikos game 'plate mail' is the pretty minimal stuff (http://www.medbherenn.com/images/elmore-1.jpg) drawn by Larry Elmore
It depends on many things. I usually allow everything available, the limiting factor is the setting & tech level the rarity of armour and the PC's resources and/or social status.
In D&D, I usually just roll with whatever is in the list. I'm usually running some kind of broad campaign where that works well enough. If I want to get more realistic or consistent with armor, I'm probably wanting to make other changes too, that will send me off to another game.
I have been known to leave "plate" in, but make it so specialized that no one wants it. But not every time.
Leather and studded leather are out.
Padded, Brigadine, Scale, Chain, Half Plate and Plate are all you need.
I don't slice the differentiation that finely. "Leather, mail, plate" serves for me. How characters choose to imagine it is up to them.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1042387I don't slice the differentiation that finely. "Leather, mail, plate" serves for me. How characters choose to imagine it is up to them.
True. Light, medium and heavy works just as well. Tell me what it looks like.
Yes.
Generally allow all the core PHB armors, as DnD is so unrealistic anyway, who cares really.
However if for some reason, I was trying to portray a historical period or a setting based on a specific novel/world, sure I'd ban and add armors (and whatever else) as required.
I allow whatever fits the system and setting.
But when running or playing D&D I generally refer to chainmail as mail, platemail as plate and mail, etc. And I like to replace D&D leather armor with a gambeson(cloth) .
Of the dubious AD&D armor types, I admit a certain fondness for "ringmail." It looks cool in pictures. But I've rarely seen it used.
I'm generally in the "light, medium, heavy" camp - you tell me what it looks like. Incidentally, a buff (leather) coat (https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=buff+coat&id=3199DEEC3E9FB1EF4DC3A192E53F67F0A7544CE8&FORM=IQFRBA) was commonly used for protection during the English Civil War, either on its own, or, if one could afford it underneath a breastplate or cuirass.
In my own book way back I went with light medium and heavy, and just told the players to desc their armour as they pleased as long as it made sense within the context. Light chain would either cover less than medium, or have a different weave of links. Quality was another factor. A well made suit of light leather would afford as much, or even better, defense than medium leather. Might fit better, or some other factor of better craftsmanship.
Think TSR played around briefly with that concept way back too didnt they?
I'm also in the "light, medium, heavy" camp though I go to a little more effort with examples and have an item-quality system that matters a lot too. I have armor types and weapons vary by region (spear-type primary weapons are fairly ubiquitous, but secondary weapons are more variable). Note that helmets of some type are always assumed regardless of armor type. There's not a specific rule for it, but reducing the armor level by one grade if not wearing a helmet would be fair.
Generally speaking light armor is whatever irregulars or similar forces would wear; typically either a gambeson (or equivalent) with metal armor (chain, scale or plate) in key locations (typically helm & breastplate, but some do helm and arms if they also use large shields to cover the torso) or extra layers of soft protection over the whole body (ex. thick hides). My go to example of this for my main campaign region would be a brigandine vest and helm over a gambeson while a bulky suit with layers of animal hides over padding would be poor-quality armor (heavier and bulkier than wearing metal armor).
Medium armor is what most professional soldiers wear and is typically a gambeson with metal armor (chain, scale or plate) that covers 50-75% of the body, but sacrifices some protection for a little more mobility and less expense. Typical examples are brigandine coats, mail hauberks and half-plate/munition armor.
Heavy armor covers the entire body in metal over padding for maximum protection and is typical of officers and knights. Higher quality grades of heavy armor improve the protection to the point that even carrying a shield is irrelevant to your protection (i.e. a full plate harness) at considerably more cost.
The system also uses small (cover the torso) and large (cover almost the whole body) shields with some higher quality armor providing a built-in shield bonus (which doesn't stack so higher quality armors make using shields less relevant).
Quote from: Simon W;1042497I'm generally in the "light, medium, heavy" camp - you tell me what it looks like. Incidentally, a buff (leather) coat (https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=buff+coat&id=3199DEEC3E9FB1EF4DC3A192E53F67F0A7544CE8&FORM=IQFRBA) was commonly used for protection during the English Civil War, either on its own, or, if one could afford it underneath a breastplate or cuirass.
It's notable that irl there was about a 200 year gap between the disappearance of mail armour and the appearance of effective leather!
One thing that really struck me is that metal armour is lighter than cloth or leather for equivalent protection, and that it was not uncommon to have a heavy gambeson that was more encumbering than metal harness, but cheaper. In rpgs you never seem to see bulky cloth armour.
Quote from: S'mon;1042370Because it's actually brigandine, with overlapping metal plates sandwiched between sheets of leather? No such thing as studded leather armour - even leather alone was very rare as armour, since thick layers of cloth are generally much better. pretty minimal stuff (http://www.medbherenn.com/images/elmore-1.jpg) drawn by Larry Elmore
Ever since I learned how historical armor works, I've been bugged by stuff like Studded Leather and the like... It almost makes me feel sad I'm no longer ignorant... almost...
Luckily the armor system in Agone was really bad (as in "better" armor sets had higher penalties for the same protection with no other benefits, or armor whose penalties were so high they negated the usefulness of their actual armor protection, like how full plate works...) So I reworked it from the ground up, using what armor sets sounded appropriate. in no particular order:
Gambeson
Scale Armour
Brigandine
Chain mail
Laminar Armor
Plate mail
When making a setting from scratch I generally prefer to stop at around scale and chain unless the setting has gunpowder.
It just bugs me slighty to have field plate and not have any gunpowder weapons.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1042387I don't slice the differentiation that finely. "Leather, mail, plate" serves for me. How characters choose to imagine it is up to them.
Yeah, this is my favorite armor division as well. If there are too many choices then folks will try to "work the system" somehow. I prefer a minimalist list where players can fill in the details as they like. For example if someone wants platemail I assume that it's all-out Knights of Camelot stuff, but if they want some sort of half plate or just a chest plate I can reason that it's effectively chainmail on my combat charts.
Other than mentally switching gambeson in where leather exists and recognize that 'studded leather' should only be a reference to the outward appearance of what is in fact simply light armor in the brigandine/lamellar family, I tend to use whatever the system has as-is. Unless you are using a weapon-vs-armor table, the abstraction of most fantasy RPGs is sufficiently abstract to say, 'look, there are X bands of armor, ranging from Y to Z in terms of effectiveness.'
Quote from: S'mon;1042501One thing that really struck me is that metal armour is lighter than cloth or leather for equivalent protection, and that it was not uncommon to have a heavy gambeson that was more encumbering than metal harness, but cheaper. In rpgs you never seem to see bulky cloth armour.
I think because people want there to be a 'light armor.' Mind you, there was (usually the same metal or gambeson as everyone else has, just less of it). But nothing that fits the (tv version) bulletproof vest or 'guy in a leather jacket' idea I think people want to capture. I think this comes from the convergence of 1) desire to emulate the Grey Mouser/D&D Thief/Robin Hood character, and 2) idea that heavy armor turns you into a lumbering oaf.
Quote from: Hastur-The-Unnameable;1042504Ever since I learned how historical armor works, I've been bugged by stuff like Studded Leather and the like... It almost makes me feel sad I'm no longer ignorant... almost...
It has helped me to realize that, although there are plenty of gamers out there that probably don't know studded leather isn't historically accurate (or never really thought about it), the knowledge that it isn't is probably the first thing people find out when they get serious about historical realism (probably threeway tie with 'katanas aren't superweapons but in fact a clever way to get around poor iron' and 'D&D longswords and what historically were called longswords do not well overlap').
What I use in the Majestic Wilderlands. Of all of these Ring Armor is least attested too in the historical record. But I figured given the the various account of slap-dash armor that affixing metal "bits" to a heavy fabric or leather backing isn't unrealistic. I will probably revised it to be a more generic leather with metal attached that less than scale, mail, or plate.
WEAPONS AND ARMOR
Quilt [+1] 10d/suit 20.0/lbs.
This represents a padded tunic covering the chest, arms, and upper thighs.
Leather, soft [+1] 25d/suit 10.0/lbs.
Supple leather hide with separate pieces covering the chest, arms, and legs. Leather gloves and boots cover the hands and feet.
Cuir Boulli [+2] 50d/suit 15.0/lbs.
Think leather hide that has been boiled into a rigid armor similar in shape to the various pieces of plate armor. It consists of separate pieces covering the chest, arms, and legs. Leather gauntlets cover the hands.
Linen [+2] 50d/suit 15.0/lbs.
Layers of cloth treated with a resin and pressed
Ring Armor [+3] 300d/suit 30.0/lbs.
Supple leather hide with separate pieces covering the chest, arms, and legs. Leather gloves and boots cover the hands and feet. The various pieces have small metal rings sewn on them to provide additional protection.
Scale, [+4] 600d/suit 60.0/lbs.
Scales made of metal are woven together and sewn onto a heavy leather backing. Unlike ring there are no gaps in between the scales. It is formed into a tunic that covers the chest, arms, and upper legs. Combined with cuirboulli greaves for the lower legs. Leather gauntlets cover the hands. Due its mass this armor reduces the character base movement by 30' per round.
Mail, [+5] 1,250d/suit 50.0/lbs.
Rings of metal are woven together to form a suit of armor. Typically in two pieces with a tunic protecting the chest, arms, and upper legs. Mail leggings are also worn to protect the groin area, legs, and feet. Mail mittens over leather gauntlets protect the hands. Due its mass this armor reduces the character base movement by 30' per round.
Plate Armor [+6] 3,000d/suit 100.0/lbs.
Steel or bronze metal formed into various pieces of armor. Separate pieces protect the chest, arms, legs, as well as articulated pieces for the feet and hands. Bronze plate is 50% more expensive due to the expense of finding and transporting the tin needed to be alloyed with copper. Due its mass this armor reduces the character base movement by 30' per round.
100 lbs plate?
Whoa, that is heavy stuff!
Is this a fantasy style choice or is the armor supposed to be primitive and heavy compared with Late Medieval /Renaissance plate?
Or is it like ultraheavy stuff meant for tournaments and not real fighting?
Quote from: TJS;1042505When making a setting from scratch I generally prefer to stop at around scale and chain unless the setting has gunpowder.
It just bugs me slighty to have field plate and not have any gunpowder weapons.
I think field plate existing without gunpowder largely depends on how magic works in the setting.
In a setting that's more like OD&D, Basic, AD&D or 3e where magic is very limited in use (more like artillary) that interacts with AC only rarely (most 3e spells that targeted AC targeted "touch AC" which explicitly excludes your armor or shield) then I'd fully agree that armor should only be as advanced as the conventional weapons it's meant to deal with.
But in 5e many of the cantrips like firebolt or eldritch blast require attack rolls vs. AC (including armor) and can be used at-will. Those are pretty easy stand-ins for gunpowder weaponry and I'd expect armor technology to evolve sufficiently that the knights of the day would have some degree of protection against it just as they would against arrows and melee weapons (my general assumption for D&D armor is that it is sufficiently advanced that bypassing it in favor of weak points is the only way to deal any real damage to the wearer... swords aren't punching through plate, they're sliding into the gaps between the plates).
Another element in favor of developing better armor types making sense for 5e is that while +X bows and arrows have existed in every edition (making them more accurate and harder hitting than conventional weapons), 5e makes +X armors a separate item from those with special properties like resistance, water breathing, stealth, etc. Full Plate with a property is essentially the 5e equivalent of scale +X with the same property.
In both cases, the development of armor up to the level of the full plate harness makes sense with that ruleset.
Similarly, in rulesets where armor is damage resistance, it makes sense for best armors to evolve to whatever level is needed to keep the wearer safe from anything short of a critical hit and still allow for reasonable mobility. Depending on what magic can do versus weapons that very well could be full plate.
Conversely, if that level is impossible to achieve with full armor (advances in gunpowder weaponry in real life, powerful battle magic in fantasy) then you'll start to see armor coverage decline in favor of thickening the armor on vital areas (i.e. head and torso) to at least keep those protected. Once that's impossible you'll start to see armor use fall of entirely (so at least you've got mobility instead of neither adequate protection nor mobility) until defensive technologies can catch up to the offensive abilities of the weapons.
If magic bypasses how armor works in those systems completely then you'll probably see a compromise between reasonable protection from weapons and mobility to evade spells with the balance point being how common combat magic is. If every squad has combat spellcaster who can let loose a dozen firebolt per minute then personal armor will probably be pretty light; enough to protect your vitals from weapons and shrapnel the magical explosions are producing. If instead you might see only a single combat spellcaster in an entire field army and their spells are on the order of 2-3 big fireballs lobbed at enemy formations before they're out of juice thenarmor choice will largely ignore spellcasting as getting hit with it is more akin to an act of God; it really sucks if you're in the unit the spellcaster lobs it at, but you're 99% more likely to be hit by another guy's spear, arrow, sword (likely multiple times a battle) so protect what you can and pray for what you can't.
It all depends on how magic functions.
Quote from: Omega;1042365This is an interesting one to me as up till recently when I saw a video demonstration of various armours I had not really thought on it and then realized that there was a certain pattern from one campaign to the next. Watching the video I was rather surprised at just how darn good scale mail is and the fact that even fairly basic studded leather is pretty effective.
That being that overall I tend to have a sort of cut off point in most campaigns at around chainmail. With scalemail being probably the most common of the "upper tier" protection. Top end being the rare suits of splint/plated mail. Full plate might as well have not existed. I think because it just did not fit the sorts of settings I usually run. Which very often lean to the mid-fantasy or even the low fantasy side. Especially in D&D.
So what sorts of armour in a fantasy setting do you allow as a DM or have seen as a player? Do you have, or have seen, a cut off point and why?
While working on a Dungeon World fighter variant, I looked into armor because for some reason the game just has: leather/mail (they both weight and cost the same, and provide equal protection), scale, and plate. I'd already known for awhile that studded leather probably didn't exist, and just now I couldn't find anything on it so I'm guessing it definitely didn't exist.
I took what I learned into my D&D hack (also learned that longswords are just swords/arming swords, and greatswords are longswords), which has in order of general effectiveness: leather, brigandine, mail shirt, lamellar, scale, mail, laminar, chain and plate, and plate. I saw a video talking about why leather wouldn't be ideal and how a gambeson is just as good if not better, so decided to swap them. Haven't seen an armor comparison video, which would be great because I'm not sure how some armor types stack up (especially brigandine).
Quote from: Ewan;1042526100 lbs plate?
Whoa, that is heavy stuff!
Is this a fantasy style choice or is the armor supposed to be primitive and heavy compared with Late Medieval /Renaissance plate?
Or is it like ultraheavy stuff meant for tournaments and not real fighting?
Thats the bundled weight. From personal experience I can tell you that a 50lb chain coat, (well it was a coat on me!) doesnt feel that heavy because the weight is distributed when worn. Weights of armours can be deceptive as people keep forgetting that weight distribution is the key. And fitting! An ill fitting suit can be cumbersome in various ways where it would not otherwise.
Quote from: Ewan;1042526100 lbs plate?
That was it was in the version Swords & Wizardry SRD I used as a base. But now that you pointed out it out I am going to drop it to 70 lbs to match the current version. It could be argued that it was lighter but that with well tempered steel. This represent the "average" suit of plate a knight would commission.
Sure. I'm not a big fan of the way Third Edition Nerfs medium and heavy armor. That is I don't think that a professional Fighting Man wearing a suit properly fitted should be at any hindrance in melee. If he has a very high dexterity then he ought to get the benefit of it. Of course Masterwork and Magic can allow that. I might go a bit further and reduce the associated penalties of plate with a note that the ordinary penalties or caps do apply to armor that you just loot off enemies because it's not fitted for you.
Oh and I am using my and it's voice typing capability, in case you were wondering about the odd capitalization. I'll get desktop internet access tomorrow fingers crossed.
Quote from: estar;1042567That was it was in the version Swords & Wizardry SRD I used as a base. But now that you pointed out it out I am going to drop it to 70 lbs to match the current version. It could be argued that it was lighter but that with well tempered steel. This represent the "average" suit of plate a knight would commission.
Cool. I'm glad that my comment was helpful. I don't know if the estimates of lower weights for plate harness include the weight of the aketon or gambeson worn underneath. So yeah 70 lbs sounds great to me. Perfectly gameable.
Quote from: Omega;1042561Thats the bundled weight. From personal experience I can tell you that a 50lb chain coat, (well it was a coat on me!) doesnt feel that heavy because the weight is distributed when worn. Weights of armours can be deceptive as people keep forgetting that weight distribution is the key. And fitting! An ill fitting suit can be cumbersome in various ways where it would not otherwise.
It all about proper straps and belt. The main issue with armor is not flexibility or as you said the weight. The main issue is fatigue. Even probably sized, belted, and strapped; it wearying carrying that much weight around. But if you are in good condition and don't have to run the equivalent of a marathon, you can wear it all day if you have too. But if the target bolts and you have to give chase without a horse, if you don't catch right away he going to outlast you in terms of endurance.
I worn armor as part of LARPS and SCA (medieval enactment). As far as LARPS go where you generally wear armor all the time, you start your first few events way over armored. Then learn what you actually need and shed the excess. You may sacrifice a bit of protection but you will strike a happy medium between protection, endurance, and comfort.
Well if you're running D&D and there's no plate armor then I expect shields will be a popular choice for Fighters and two-handed weapons correspondingly less popular. This feels right given that heavily armored fighting men carried shields until pretty late, historically speaking, when full suits of plate armor were available --at least to those who could afford them. I'm thinking primarily of Europe of course.
Quote from: Ewan;1042526100 lbs plate?
Whoa, that is heavy stuff!
Is this a fantasy style choice or is the armor supposed to be primitive and heavy compared with Late Medieval /Renaissance plate?
Or is it like ultraheavy stuff meant for tournaments and not real fighting?
I'm OK with the heaviest armor meant for real fighting, just from horseback. I recall stories about knights in full plate being lifted onto their steeds with a crane (I'm sure the history experts here know more).
Quote from: Omega;1042561Thats the bundled weight. From personal experience I can tell you that a 50lb chain coat, (well it was a coat on me!) doesnt feel that heavy because the weight is distributed when worn. Weights of armours can be deceptive as people keep forgetting that weight distribution is the key. And fitting! An ill fitting suit can be cumbersome in various ways where it would not otherwise.
100 lb. is still REALLY high for field plate. 40-60 lb. with good weight distribution is more realistic based on historical evidence.
Another factor to consider is "travelling" vs. "field" armor. Full plate is not something a knight donned while just traveling from place to place; even if there might be robbers on the road; it was simply too hot and stuffy for that. It only got donned when combat was known to be about to occur (such as on the field of battle).
In other words field plate is NOT something your typical dungeon-delver and wandering murder hobo would ever typically wear. If you have to wear armor all day long it's going to be lighter, more breathable and probably something you can don and doff yourself. Gambesons, brigandine vests and coats, mail shirts and hauberks, and breastplates are what your wandering heroes are typically going to be adventuring in.
You'd probably also see more use of shields since they're lighter than most suits of armor, can be carried on the back and readied quickly and provide good protection for those trained in them without being too hot or stuffy. A shield is never going to be as protective as a full plate harness and using one means you can't effectively wield a true two-handed weapon of war like a halberd, but the trade offs for a traveling adventurer are more than worth it.
Those stories are bunk. That's like 20 pound swords used for actual fighting. All the stuff is based on misconceptions and mistakes and some popular literary exaggerations of the 19th century. Sorry if that sounds pedantic. I certainly don't mean that anybody who wants to run a game that way is having bad wrong fun in doing so. But I know as a player I would definitely get a chuckle out of a fighting man being hoisted into the saddle. It's a comical image has more to do with Mark Twain than with history.
RE : Heat. If I recall correctly some of the men who fought at the Battle of Taunton actually died of heat stroke because they were in full armor and exerting themselves at length. It was fought in the winter with snow. But a man can definitely heat up in firefighting gear or modern body armor stuff even if very cold weather. It's insulating. I imagine that a heavy quilted gambeson isn't all that comfortable on a hot summer day. But take a knee and drink water, right?
I think that the encumbrance system used in older editions of D&D works just fine as an abstraction of armor's bulk, insulation, and heaviness.
The game in any edition really isn't a close or detailed simulation of medieval combat. Of course it does include some simulationist elements. One just has to decide which touches of realism one wants to include amid all the abstraction. I have my preferences.
Quote from: Zalman;1042575I'm OK with the heaviest armor meant for real fighting, just from horseback. I recall stories about knights in full plate being lifted onto their steeds with a crane (I'm sure the history experts here know more).
Armors that heavy were only used in tournaments. Field plate was light and flexible enough to stand, roll and even do cartwheels in. As stated with good weight distribution even 70 lb. isn't too bad, but you will get fatigued more quickly than someone in lighter gear and unless weather conditions are ideal it will be a hot, stuffy and sweaty affair which will further sap your endurance (drink lots of fluids).
Hell, I specifically set my default campaign location in an oceanic climate (cooler summers and winters that rarely drop below freezing thanks to the moderating influence of ocean currents and frequent rain/cloud cover which further reduces that direct sun heat) specifically to make the ability to use heavier armors as easy as possible.
I'm not sure how much thought people have really given it, but the British Isles, Northern France and Germany have the ideal climate for heavy armor use even during much of the summer months (still pretty miserable, but less so than in say in a Mediterranean or Continental climate zone).
Quote from: Chris24601;1042584Armors that heavy were only used in tournaments.
Good to get the historic perspective on that. It's still OK with me if a character needs to be hoisted into the saddle to wear the heaviest armor available in a fantasy game, even in "real" combat.
Quote from: Zalman;1042587Good to get the historic perspective on that. It's still OK with me if a character needs to be hoisted into the saddle to wear the heaviest armor available in a fantasy game, even in "real" combat.
In that case, are you familiar with the "suit armor" that appears in the D&D Rules Cyclopedia? It is pretty close to what you are describing. It also offers a little addition protection against certain types of magical attack.
Quote from: Chris24601;1042576In other words field plate is NOT something your typical dungeon-delver and wandering murder hobo would ever typically wear. If you have to wear armor all day long it's going to be lighter, more breathable and probably something you can don and doff yourself. Gambesons, brigandine vests and coats, mail shirts and hauberks, and breastplates are what your wandering heroes are typically going to be adventuring in.
And this is where you probably have to decide whether you want to be exceptionally realistic, or hew more towards "I take my plate armor and greatsword into the dungeon because I didn't pick up this game to be running around in a gambeson with a trench knife because 'that's what's realistic' for dungeon-crawling!" :p Although, honestly, I kinda like the concept of lots of brigandine or other lamellar and maybe daggers-though-broadswords as kinda fighter-rogue gear for dedicated 'tunnel-runner' types.
Quote from: Ewan;1042571Cool. I'm glad that my comment was helpful. I don't know if the estimates of lower weights for plate harness include the weight of the aketon or gambeson worn underneath. So yeah 70 lbs sounds great to me. Perfectly gameable.
I looked at several sources and I think the 70 lbs does include all the gear. Some had it pegged as low as 40 lbs but careful reading makes it sounds like the armor alone.
Whatever the base game has.
Quote from: Willie the Duck;1042592And this is where you probably have to decide whether you want to be exceptionally realistic,
The general idea behind my list is to create a limited selection, peg each to something historical, and ignore all the variations. The major "innovation" I put some thought into is adding Cuir Boulli and Laminar. As it turns out Laminar was the cheap armor of the ancient period. Making armor out of layers of cloth soaked in resin, lacquer, etc pressed together.
Quote from: Ewan;1042569Sure. I'm not a big fan of the way Third Edition Nerfs medium and heavy armor. That is I don't think that a professional Fighting Man wearing a suit properly fitted should be at any hindrance in melee. If he has a very high dexterity then he ought to get the benefit of it. Of course Masterwork and Magic can allow that. I might go a bit further and reduce the associated penalties of plate with a note that the ordinary penalties or caps do apply to armor that you just loot off enemies because it's not fitted for you.
Oh and I am using my and it's voice typing capability, in case you were wondering about the odd capitalization. I'll get desktop internet access tomorrow fingers crossed.
It's funny to watch, but if you can do back flips, with a little practice you can do them in plate armor.
Properly fitted, it's surprisingly easy to move it.
The "linothorax" might be a decent sub for D&D leather armor,I suppose.
Fancy cuir boulli and quilted tourney armor would be fun. Not cheap stuff, but impressively tooled.
Quote from: Willie the Duck;1042592And this is where you probably have to decide whether you want to be exceptionally realistic, or hew more towards "I take my plate armor and greatsword into the dungeon because I didn't pick up this game to be running around in a gambeson with a trench knife because 'that's what's realistic' for dungeon-crawling!" :p Although, honestly, I kinda like the concept of lots of brigandine or other lamellar and maybe daggers-though-broadswords as kinda fighter-rogue gear for dedicated 'tunnel-runner' types.
It also depends on the combat system you're using/making.
I can't remember the name of the game I'm thinking of, but is this case, weapons provide options like reach or armor penetration, but the damage is based of the user's lvl and proficiency.
Gonna echo the people who've said they tend to use simple light/medium/heavy categories when given the option. Usually name them gambeson/maille*/plate.
*I prefer this spelling to avoid homograph confusion, and it looks more archaic, which suits the setting more often than not.
Quote from: Warboss Squee;1042597It's funny to watch, but if you can do back flips, with a little practice you can do them in plate armor.
Properly fitted, it's surprisingly easy to move it.
Right.
I think rules that nerf nimble warriors in mail or plate are misguided attempts at realism . Or maybe it's more about rigging things so that a nimble man in poor and very light armor can go toe-to-toe with a heavily armored Warrior who is just as quick and agile. I really don't like that. It probably would fit in a sort of swashbuckling game but it runs counter to the gritty quasi medieval feel I like in my D&D.
Getting better armor/shields seems to be part of advancement for fighters, at least to me.
And it isn't as if most PCs will ditch lighter suits of magic armor for nonmagical heavier armor of the same or inferior AC. So the niche protection really isn't needed. If you are a fighter who really loves his gambeson go looking for a magical gambeson. If somebody has one see if he'll trade it
. And of course there are environments in which wearing more than the lightest sort of armor may not be such a great idea. I'm thinking mainly of places like a city in which it's illegal to wear anything more than an arming doublet in public or a tropical swamp with fantasy quicksand and similar hazards. Armor certainly helps in a shipboard fight but do you want to fall in the drink while wearing a lot of it? And then there's the Exotic stuff like actually adventuring underwater.
Quote from: Broken Twin;1042601Gonna echo the people who've said they tend to use simple light/medium/heavy categories when given the option. Usually name them gambeson/maille*/plate.
*I prefer this spelling to avoid homograph confusion, and it looks more archaic, which suits the setting more often than not.
Elegant. I think I will take the same approach the next time I run BX D&D.
Quote from: Zalman;1042575I'm OK with the heaviest armor meant for real fighting, just from horseback. I recall stories about knights in full plate being lifted onto their steeds with a crane (I'm sure the history experts here know more).
Sweet Crom's hairy nutsack, that bullshit story hasn't been killed yet?
Quote from: Omega;1042365This is an interesting one to me as up till recently when I saw a video demonstration of various armours I had not really thought on it and then realized that there was a certain pattern from one campaign to the next. Watching the video I was rather surprised at just how darn good scale mail is and the fact that even fairly basic studded leather is pretty effective.
That being that overall I tend to have a sort of cut off point in most campaigns at around chainmail. With scalemail being probably the most common of the "upper tier" protection. Top end being the rare suits of splint/plated mail. Full plate might as well have not existed. I think because it just did not fit the sorts of settings I usually run. Which very often lean to the mid-fantasy or even the low fantasy side. Especially in D&D.
So what sorts of armour in a fantasy setting do you allow as a DM or have seen as a player? Do you have, or have seen, a cut off point and why?
Cloth padding is common, generally worn under metal armors.
Leather as padding is allowed but there is no "leather armor," other than some exotic leathers.
More layered and heavier cloth, gambeson, is very common as the armor of ordinary people and also worn as padding under metal.
Aurochs leather is available but no one has used it that I remember, wyvern hide and dragon hides of various kinds are very useful but not generally for sale.
Metal lames on cloth or leather are uncommon in my latest campaign but were common elsewhere.
Mail is common. Various combinations of plate and mail are expensive.
Plate is _very_ expensive.
Elves grow their own armor.
Dwarfs make a mineral-fiber armor that is somewhat better than gambeson in combat effectiveness and is
much better in terms of comfort and insulation.
It is also the fault of the Dwarfs that there is good plate armor in the setting.
Quote from: Chris24601;1042531I think field plate existing without gunpowder largely depends on how magic works in the setting.
In a setting that's more like OD&D, Basic, AD&D or 3e where magic is very limited in use (more like artillary) that interacts with AC only rarely (most 3e spells that targeted AC targeted "touch AC" which explicitly excludes your armor or shield) then I'd fully agree that armor should only be as advanced as the conventional weapons it's meant to deal with.
...'t.
It all depends on how magic functions.
You make a good point. But these days I won't go near any setting where magic takes the place of technology. I'd rather technology take the place of technology and magic be mysterious unreliable and weird.
Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1042614Leather as padding is allowed but there is no "leather armor," other than some exotic leathers.
Actually, leather was used a lot in armor. Very often it was "cuir-boulli," thick partially-tanned leather soaked in boiling water and molded to shape. Some small amount of it has survived, but being perishable most hasn't. SOURCE: Helmut Nickel, former curator of the Arms and Armor collection at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in NYC, from several of his books and his lecture in Minneapolis in 1981 or 1982.
I think what is in dispute is AD&D style "leather armor" not the historical use of cuir boulli to make some pieces of armor. But with the possible exception of some helmets for archers, was the stuff ever used extensively for combat gear? I have run across references to armor for a tourney-' but IIRC, the tourney used whalebone and wood arms, not real metal weapons.
Mock weapons weren't common until the 15th or 16th century, and even then were not always used. The Tower of London armories have numerous tournament helmets that have obviously been whanged on with steel weapons.
Leather was also WAY cheaper than metal; almost anybody could afford a hardened leather cap or curie, and it would be a lot cheaper than even maille. Through most of the Middle Ages there are frequent references to footmen with "curies" or gambesons.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1042660Mock weapons weren't common until the 15th or 16th century, and even then were not always used. The Tower of London armories have numerous tournament helmets that have obviously been whanged on with steel weapons.
Leather was also WAY cheaper than metal; almost anybody could afford a hardened leather cap or curie, and it would be a lot cheaper than even maille. Through most of the Middle Ages there are frequent references to footmen with "curies" or gambesons.
Right, but were "curies" a type of cuir boulli armor? Or are we talking about a heavy leather coat, possibly a precursor to the buff coats of the Early Modern? Multiple layers stitched together?
A quilted jacket faced with leather?
Anyway, I think cuir boulli is fun stuff. Medieval plastic. I don't write hardened leather armor out of my games so much as I place a strong emphasis on textile armor over leather.
Gambesons! :)
IIRC the AD&D 2E PHB suggests that a Pike and Shot era buff coat could be treated as hide armor. AC 6 and moderately heavy.
That seems about right go me. Unless I have read the wrong stuff, those buff coats worn by soldiers were rather stiff, thick, and pretty good at protecting the body.
Quote from: Ewan;1042670Right, but were "curies" a type of cuir boulli armor? Or are we talking about a heavy leather coat, possibly a precursor to the buff coats of the Early Modern? Multiple layers stitched together?
A quilted jacket faced with leather?
Anyway, I think cuir boulli is fun stuff. Medieval plastic. I don't write hardened leather armor out of my games so much as I place a strong emphasis on textile armor over leather.
Gambesons! :)
IIRC the AD&D 2E PHB suggests that a Pike and Shot era buff coat could be treated as hide armor. AC 6 and moderately heavy.
That seems about right go me. Unless I have read the wrong stuff, those buff coats worn by soldiers were rather stiff, thick, and pretty good at protecting the body.
We did a lot of Oriental Adventures stuff, and lamellar over padded cloth was historically quite useful.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1042612Sweet Crom's hairy nutsack, that bullshit story hasn't been killed yet?
I saw it on the Internet, so it must be true.
Quote from: Ewan;1042670Right, but were "curies" a type of cuir boulli armor? Or are we talking about a heavy leather coat, possibly a precursor to the buff coats of the Early Modern? Multiple layers stitched together?
A quilted jacket faced with leather?
Anyway, I think cuir boulli is fun stuff. Medieval plastic. I don't write hardened leather armor out of my games so much as I place a strong emphasis on textile armor over leather.
Gambesons! :)
IIRC the AD&D 2E PHB suggests that a Pike and Shot era buff coat could be treated as hide armor. AC 6 and moderately heavy.
That seems about right go me. Unless I have read the wrong stuff, those buff coats worn by soldiers were rather stiff, thick, and pretty good at protecting the body.
Well, see my previous comment about sticking to "leather/padded, maille, plate." Saves a LOT of nitpicking.
Like when somebody dressed their Bugbear guards in Landsknecht style munitions half-armors, I just said "Okay, it's AC5."
Quote from: Zalman;1042575I'm OK with the heaviest armor meant for real fighting, just from horseback. I recall stories about knights in full plate being lifted onto their steeds with a crane (I'm sure the history experts here know more).
Interesting TV show on the subject, here http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/secrets-shining-knight.html However, one must join the club to watch it. The transcript is available. Scroll down just a bit.
The relevant passage: "NARRATOR: Tournament armors were worn for short periods of time, so they could be heavy. This one, belonging to Henry VIII, weighs 94 pounds, twice the weight of a typical battle armor. It has no gaps, anywhere.
But whether for tournaments or battle, the perfect fit was crucial.
ANDY DEANE: There is a misconception about armor that once you're in it, you can't really move. It's not true. Anything you can do out of an armor, you should be able to do in armor, so, from this bizarre position or being thrown to the ground, you should be able to haul yourself up. Obviously, not as quick-you're wearing, sort of, 70 pounds of armor-but you should be able to do it.
TOBY CAPWELL: They are engineered to follow the movements of the human body very precisely. Lumbering around, clunking around would be a danger to your knightly dignity as well as to your life. It's just not acceptable; this stuff has to move."
It was an interesting show too, shame it is now behind a paywall. I'm sure it will be rebroadcast OTA sometime later this year ( These shows usually are broadcast at least twice.) The breast plate really was bulletproof, or musketball proof.
Quote from: chirine ba kal;1042695I saw it on the Internet, so it must be true.
I saw it debunked on the internet...does that create some sort of paradox? :eek:
Quote from: antiochcow;1042701I saw it debunked on the internet...does that create some sort of paradox? :eek:
Yes. Temporal fugue, at a minimum.
Quote from: Ewan;1042598The "linothorax" might be a decent sub for D&D leather armor,I suppose.
Fancy cuir boulli and quilted tourney armor would be fun. Not cheap stuff, but impressively tooled.
Tube-and-yoke is a better term if you want to avoid the made-up one. That might be made of leather, but it could also be quilted linen.
Quote from: Kiero;1042719Tube-and-yoke is a better term if you want to avoid the made-up one. That might be made of leather, but it could also be quilted linen.
I like the idea of glued layers of linen.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1042697Well, see my previous comment about sticking to "leather/padded, maille, plate." Saves a LOT of nitpicking.
Like when somebody dressed their Bugbear guards in Landsknecht style munitions half-armors, I just said "Okay, it's AC5."
Makes sense.
I get a big more fussy with AD&D 2e and with D20, but for B/X I think I really like this three tier generic armor approach.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1042612Sweet Crom's hairy nutsack, that bullshit story hasn't been killed yet?
I certainly hope not, it's a great story!
In my games armor has varied by the campaign and by the location. There have been some places where people have a lot of full plate armor, but more often, articulated plate is uncommon even when it's available. Metal breastplates, cuirasses, helmets, and sometimes greaves or vambraces tend to be more common, worn mixed with other armor. Mail and/or metal scale tend to be the heaviest common armors.
Quote from: Zalman;1042575I'm OK with the heaviest armor meant for real fighting, just from horseback. I recall stories about knights in full plate being lifted onto their steeds with a crane (I'm sure the history experts here know more).
That was never true about armor intended for combat. Mark Twain and many others have written things about knights being slow and clumsy but it's nonsense. Tourney armor, of course, did get that heavy.
Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1042760Mark Twain and many others have written things about knights being slow and clumsy but it's nonsense.
The movie
Excalibur too, those guys look hard-pressed to swing and ax!
Quote from: Omega;1042365So what sorts of armour in a fantasy setting do you allow as a DM or have seen as a player? Do you have, or have seen, a cut off point and why?
Here's what I wrote up for the club's Crusades-era Hunter game (so real-world, authentic feeling but gothic fantasy) a couple years back (RAW paste):
Light:
---------------------------------
Leather [Armor, Worn; Leather, Suit; DEF(0), ARM(1/1/0), SPD(0), STG(1); MODSP(0), MODCM(0); SIZE(5), STR(7), DUR(2), COST(1)]
Boiled Leather [Armor, Worn; Leather, Suit; DEF(0), ARM(2/1/0), SPD(-1), STG(2); MODSP(0), MODCM(0); SIZE(5), STR(7), DUR(2), COST(1)]
Hide [Armor, Worn; Leather, Suit; DEF(0), ARM(1/2/0), SPD(-1), STG(2); MODSP(0), MODCM(0); SIZE(5), STR(7), DUR(2), COST(1)]
---------------------------------
Medium:
---------------------------------
Cuirass [Armor, Worn; Iron, Suit; DEF(0), ARM(2/2/0), SPD(-1), STG(2); MODSP(0), MODCM(-1); SIZE(5), STR(7), DUR(2), COST(2)]
Chainmail [Armor, Worn; Chain, Suit; DEF(-1), ARM(3/1/0), SPD(-2), STG(3); MODSP(-1), MODCM(0); SIZE(5), STR(8), DUR(3), COST(2)]
Gambeson [Armor, Worn; Padded, Suit; DEF(0), ARM(1/3/0), SPD(-2), STG(3); MODSP(-1), MODCM(-1); SIZE(5), STR(8), DUR(3), COST(2)]
---------------------------------
Heavy:
---------------------------------
Banded [Armor, Worn; Banded, Suit; DEF(-2), ARM(2/4/0), SPD(-3), STG(4); MODSP(-2), MODCM(-2); SIZE(5), STR(9), DUR(4), COST(4); Bulletproof]
Plate [Armor, Worn; Plate, Suit; DEF(-2), ARM(5/2/0), SPD(-3), STG(4); MODSP(-3), MODCM(-2); SIZE(5), STR(9), DUR(4), COST(4)]
Scale [Armor, Worn; Scale, Suit; DEF(-1), ARM(3/3/0), SPD(-2), STG(3); MODSP(-2), MODCM(-2); SIZE(5), STR(9), DUR(3), COST(3)]
---------------------------------
Shields:
---------------------------------
Pavise [Armor, Barrier; Wood, Wall; DEF(0), ARM(1/1/0), SPD(-2), STG(3); DUR(2), STR(6), SIZE(4), COST(1); Setup(2), Provides 3 Concealment when setup, lose defense on setup, lose ARM when setup]
Buckler [Armor, Shield; Wood, Round; DEF(+1), ARM(0/0/0), SPD(0), STG(1); DUR(2), STR(4), SIZE(2), COST(1)]
Light Shield [Armor, Shield; Wood, Round; DEF(+2), ARM(0/0/0), SPD(-1), STG(2); DUR(3), STR(6), SIZE(3), COST(2)]
Heavy Shield [Armor, Shield; Iron, Heater; DEF(+3), ARM(0/0/0), SPD(-2), STG(3); DUR(3), STR(6), SIZE(3), COST(3)]
---------------------------------
Quote from: Ewan;1042574Well if you're running D&D and there's no plate armor then I expect shields will be a popular choice for Fighters and two-handed weapons correspondingly less popular. This feels right given that heavily armored fighting men carried shields until pretty late, historically speaking, when full suits of plate armor were available --at least to those who could afford them. I'm thinking primarily of Europe of course.
That is pretty much what happened in some of my campaigns too. Shields got more use and 2-handed weapons got less. In others though, especially earlier sessions Id see more players who would bring along a 2-handed weapon and a 1-handed so they could swap out if possible depending on the situation.
Quote from: Ewan;1042605Right.
I think rules that nerf nimble warriors in mail or plate are misguided attempts at realism . Or maybe it's more about rigging things so that a nimble man in poor and very light armor can go toe-to-toe with a heavily armored Warrior who is just as quick and agile. I really don't like that. It probably would fit in a sort of swashbuckling game but it runs counter to the gritty quasi medieval feel I like in my D&D.
Same here. Its one of the things I like about D&D is that it doesnt penalize you for wearing better armour other than you have to actually have the strength to wear it and might suffer a little slower movement which is reasonable.
Quote from: chirine ba kal;1042695I saw it on the Internet, so it must be true.
No no no! We saw Danny Kaye do it in The Court Jester (1955) so it must be true!
Quote from: Zalman;1042754I certainly hope not, it's a great story!
No, it's not. Seriously. It has horribly skewed people's perceptions of history.
Quote from: Ewan;1042605Right.
I think rules that nerf nimble warriors in mail or plate are misguided attempts at realism . Or maybe it's more about rigging things so that a nimble man in poor and very light armor can go toe-to-toe with a heavily armored Warrior who is just as quick and agile. I really don't like that. It probably would fit in a sort of swashbuckling game but it runs counter to the gritty quasi medieval feel I like in my D&D.
That is because the notion of "heavy foot hold the line, light foot flank" is too complicated for most gamers, apparently. If you charge light troops directly into the teeth of heavy troops, you're an imbecile and deserve to get handed your ass in a bucket.
Quote from: Omega;1042777No no no! We saw Danny Kaye do it in The Court Jester (1955) so it must be true!
Yea, Verily, Yea!
Personally, I stick with the armor in the systems I play. I feel like the armors in the systems I play or would play are all reasonable. They may not be perfectly accurate, but the mechanics all seem reasonable:
OD&D: Leather, Chain, Plate.
RuneQuest (here I stick with RQ 1 armor): Padding + Heavy Leather, Cuirboilli, Ring Mail, Scale, Chainmail, Brigandine, Plate, for head: Padding + Hood, Cap, Composite, Open, Closed, Full
Of the RQ 1 armors, I see Padding, Heavy Leather, Chainmail, and Plate in most common use. Some others may see temporary use until PCs can afford better
Burning Wheel: Gambeson, Reinforced Leather, Light Mail, Heavy Mail, Plated Mail, Full Plated Mail - I haven't seen the full range in play.
I think other systems I play or have played (Cold Iron for sure) are similar to above.
Some systems get too crazy in trying to include every armor under the sun. I think the system is best when it provides simple trade offs between protection and encumbrance, with cost being a secondary factor (like RQ has some non-optimal armors that are cheap - more encumbering for the protection you get, but cheap - they will likely be discarded as soon as the poor starting PC gets some treasure).
Frank
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1042801No, it's not. Seriously. It has horribly skewed people's perceptions of history.
Ahh. So it is wrong in this case. But ok in others. Got it. :rolleyes:
Daphug?
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1042814Daphug?
I think he's implying that a lot 'historical' information is an outright lie that people still believe and promote, but because it furthers an agenda, it's still OK.
Oh.
Couldn't speak to that, but the one about hundred pound armor and cranes for knights is simply one that on a personal level chaps my ass.
Quote from: Zalman;1042761The movie Excalibur too, those guys look hard-pressed to swing and ax!
Insurance meant they had a shit ton of padding to not get hurt.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1042830Oh.
Couldn't speak to that, but the one about hundred pound armor and cranes for knights is simply one that on a personal level chaps my ass.
Another false statement is the belief that Western European swords were not as sharp as Japanese blades, and were quite blunt in comparison. Which is an utter and complete lie, but is designed to discredit and make fun of Western Europe's history of warfare and ability in such.
Ah, yes, the "katanas give me a boner" school of history.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1043021Another false statement is the belief that Western European swords were not as sharp as Japanese blades, and were quite blunt in comparison. Which is an utter and complete lie, but is designed to discredit and make fun of Western Europe's history of warfare and ability in such.
No it was just fanboys of Japanese media in the 80s who didn't know shit fetishising the things they likeed.
I'm not sure it's even a thing now. Longsword fighting it the new hotness. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zueF4Mu2uM)
FFS does everything need to be pulled back into the same bullshit ideological conflict?
My impression was that the katana cult thing is rather like the Sir Walter Scott 'scimitar so sharp it cuts silk, which has been repeated in books and film.
In scene in question (from The Talisman), King Richard's sword can cut through a bar of iron and not suffer the least damage. He's strong. His sword is very strong too.
Saladin can slice through a silken pillow with a very light, delicate draw cut.
It seems to be about Westerners' imaginary view of the mysterious and subtle ways of the Orient. Razor swords and exotic fighting arts
Quote from: Ewan;1043072My impression was that the katana cult thing is rather like the Sir Walter Scott 'scimitar so sharp it cuts silk, which has been repeated in books and film.
In scene in question (from The Talisman), King Richard's sword can cut through a bar of iron and not suffer the least damage. He's strong. His sword is very strong too.
Saladin can slice through a silken pillow with a very light, delicate draw cut.
It seems to be about Westerners' imaginary view of the mysterious and subtle ways of the Orient. Razor swords and exotic fighting arts
That's what Scott was doing, yes. And you can do that in a game too. The problem is when a katana cuts open a tank as easily as Saladin cut open a silk pillow.
In the movie version Robert Preston slices a silk scarf floating in mid air. Marvelous as a piece of film.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1043075That's what Scott was doing, yes. And you can do that in a game too. The problem is when a katana cuts open a tank as easily as Saladin cut open a silk pillow.
In the movie version Robert Preston slices a silk scarf floating in mid air. Marvelous as a piece of film.
Right!
But don't you know that the Japanese defeated us in WW2 by slicing machine-guns and armored vehicles to ribbons with their super-swords? And of course their ninja skills enabled them to get that close without being spotted and shot down first.
That's why I grew up under occupation on the West Coast.
Wait...
Obligatory note for the easily-offended:
I'm not making fun of the Japanese, just poking fun at the more extreme sort of weeaboos.
;)
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1043021Another false statement is the belief that Western European swords were not as sharp as Japanese blades, and were quite blunt in comparison.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1043023Ah, yes, the "katanas give me a boner" school of history.
Quote from: TJS;1043056No it was just fanboys of Japanese media in the 80s who didn't know shit fetishising the things they likeed.
I'm pretty sure it started with Victorian historians who were massive fanboys of the English archers beating French knights. They had longbow-ners.
I think there's a lot of thing at play. The Victorians did a good job of badmouthing their own pre-gunpowder era, implying that sword fighting was just a couple of brutes bashing each other with sharpened iron bars. The Japanese, OTOH, kinda reinterpreted the past as a more civilized time in some ways. They also produced some amazing propaganda films leading up to and during WWII about how their samurai could cut through rifle barrels, etc. Then after the war they've done a great job of exporting their national brand through media, and the image of katanas as super-weapons has stuck.
Quote from: Dude with unquoteable name;1043087They had longbow-ners.
This made my day.
Quote from: John Scott;1042371It depends on many things. I usually allow everything available, the limiting factor is the setting & tech level the rarity of armour and the PC's resources and/or social status.
That's usually how I call it, too. My own campaign is very similar to the Dark Ages or late Migration Era, so the armors are as follows:
- AC4 Splint -includes Banded (as described in AD&D) or other armors where chainmail has extra metal pieces added for protection, like heavy lamellar
- AC5 Chainmail -pretty self-explanatory, though this refers to a whole suit or long coat (a chainmail shirt is AC6)
- AC6 Scale -like splint, only without the chainmail
- AC7 Studded -like scale, only the metal bits are fewer and farther between and attached to a backing of leather, thick cloth (this also includes what I call Scrap Armor -bits of this and pieces of that cobbled together, like the orcs in LOTR wear)
- AC8 Leather/Padded/Paper -I don't worry much over whether the fabrics are soft or hard (or both). I figure it's six of one and a half dozen of the other.
These are just base numbers, which can go up or down depending on craftsmanship, materials, wear-and-tear, etc.
I don't get too hung up on what a particular armor is called, since most of the names were made up centuries after the armors were made. For example, "mail" was a generic term for any kind of metal armor 400 years ago, so the term "chainmail" was coined later to cut down on confusion. "Linothorax" and "transitional armor" are also relatively new terms for old armors.
I love Mazes & Minotaurs' approach. You get +2 from your Shield, your Breastplate and your Helm.
For me, that's armor nirvana.
I didn't want to go all obsessive with armor values in Lion & Dragon; but I did make some broad changes to make armor more clearly reflect Medieval-Authentic types in use.
Also, Fighters and Clerics get different ACs from the same armor than any of the other classes. Because there's a difference between wearing armor and being TRAINED to wear armor.