Silly Damage resistance

[Samson]

It seems to me that it's fairly easy to create a character (while still keeping a good character concept in mind) that is well nigh invulnerable to most attacks made by a person of average ST.

Take the following example:

Plate Armour: AV 6 TO 8 = DR 14 (a character from Stahl +1 TO)

Greatsword: DAM Str + 3 (ATN 6) ST 4 = DAM 7

now from the was things look the fellow with the Greatsword needs at least 8 successes in order to do a level one wound the the guy in plate armour.

Anyway, I ran this through the combat generator and it seems even when rolling 15 dice the guy with the great sword can't seem to harm mister armour.......I don't know if anybody else sees a problem here but I certainly do.

Please note that this character is not terribly min-maxed either as priority A was put into Attributes.

[Valamir]

Ummm...because there's a good reason why knights would sink multiple years worth of revenue for a good suit of armor...

This would be why they invented "anti armor" weapons like the Pole-Axe which give a bonus vs. hard armors, and techniques like Half Swording which are aimed at getting a good thrust through the chinks.

If you're just swinging a sword against a guy in full plate...yeah.  Be prepared to swing all day and not do too much to him.  That's quite realistic.

Alternatively, try some tactics.
1)  Like using the hook maneuver to put the guy on his back
2)  Like wearing lighter armor than he is so that over the course of many rounds he's getting fatigued faster than you, thereby increasing your die margin over him and increasing the likely hood of landing a good blow.
3) Double team him so he has to split his dice, or waste dice on terrain rolls.

That said a TO 8 is pretty cheese.  Same as in D&D when you encounter the fighter who just happens to have 18 strength and 18 con.  Deal with it as you would there.

Plus there are SEVERAL threads that specifically address the idea of TO as a score already, a quick search should turn up several ideas for dealing with TO.

One of my favorites is to allow TO to only cancel damage from opponents strength, not from weapon or successes.

[Ingenious]

I completely agree with what Valamir said, but must add that plate definutely has its drawbacks. Besides the aforementioned fatigue factor, plate really isn't much of a match for blunt/mass weapons, flails, maces, mauls etc. And also an arrow from a longbow or a bolt from a crossbow will go through plate like it was nothing... and that's even the thickest of plate. Of course this is in the book, would you bother to read the pro's and con's of different types of armor.

-Cory

[Ben Lehman]

Anyway, I ran this through the combat generator and it seems even when rolling 15 dice the guy with the great sword can't seem to harm mister armour.......I don't know if anybody else sees a problem here but I certainly do.

BL>  Six words:  Combat Simulator does not include fatigue.

To be a little more long-winded:  My leather-armored duellist will have twice your CP and NO problem harrying you until you drop dead.  Not from wounds.  From dehydration.

yrs--
--Ben

[Salamander]

I completely agree with what Valamir said, but must add that plate definutely has its drawbacks. Besides the aforementioned fatigue factor, plate really isn't much of a match for blunt/mass weapons, flails, maces, mauls etc. And also an arrow from a longbow or a bolt from a crossbow will go through plate like it was nothing... and that's even the thickest of plate. Of course this is in the book, would you bother to read the pro's and con's of different types of armor.

-Cory

Actually....Flails, hammers, maces, axes & pollaxes were the weapons of choice. Mauls are a bit unrealistic to use in a fight, unless used in a pinch. They were a bit too bulky to use.

Arrows and quarrels were found to be rather ineffective against full harness of the early renaissance. In fact, armourers were using crossbows and muskets to proof armour in the 1520's & 1530's. If the projectile breached, the sale was lost. If the projectile did not breach, well the armourer was a few hundred ducats richer.

[Ingenious]

Well of course it is entirely dependant upon which century we're talking about. Early plate was weaker than the more advanced plate armors of the renaissance. I would say that protection from any armor is ENTIRELY dependant upon the skill of the armorer that makes it and what methods he uses to forge the steel.

[Jake Norwood]

I've seen mail and plate--all of which was sub-standard for period--survive incredible strikes, etc. by sword. I am a firm believer that armor was worn because it worked.

Jake

[Brian Leybourne]

BL>  Six words:  Combat Simulator does not include fatigue.

Three words: Yes it does

Brian.

[Valamir]

I would say that protection from any armor is ENTIRELY dependant upon the skill of the armorer that makes it and what methods he uses to forge the steel.

I think that's overstating the case.  If, as a smith, you had the capability of even making armor you were already a damn good smith.  Your run of the mill village smith might hammer out horseshoes and nails and the occasional farm implement.  Even such things as iron pots and laddles took a more advanced level of metal working.

To be able to fashion armor puts the smith at the top of the pyramid already.  While there is certainly a difference between a smith who can make armor, and the legendary smith who makes armor for the king, once the armor is made, its made, and it works.

Of FAR greater importance than the skill of the armorer who fashioned it would be whether the piece was actually fitted to the wearer or not.

[Caz]

From what I understand, in medieval europe at least, smiths generally didn't make armour.  It was a business tightly controlled by guilds, where students actually had to be qualified to make and publicly sell specific pieces of armour, adhering to usually fairly strict quality control.  Many armourers never made more than a few specific pieces of harness, with many working in one shop to produce more complete armours.  They never had time to be "smiths" on the side, or they'd never get the armour done.
   This is only plate, mail, and stuff to be sold.  I'm sure a lot of drafted peasants and blacksmiths would build their own gear as they could, like simple brigandines and some cour boulli, but generally this is how it went from ancient times until armour became obsolete.

[Ian.Plumb]

Hi,

From what I understand, in medieval europe at least, smiths generally didn't make armour.  It was a business tightly controlled by guilds, where students actually had to be qualified to make and publicly sell specific pieces of armour, adhering to usually fairly strict quality control.

Do you have a reference for this?

It seems back to front to me. In 14th century Lyon virtually all occupations/crafts are organized into métiers. There are more than 100 different métiers registered in Lyon, a city with a population of around 18k. The masters of the métiers certainly controlled the practice of that business within the city. In that sense, yes, production of armor is limited or controlled by the relevant métier -- but it is not unusual for this to be the case.

Arbalétiers, armeours, eperonniers, espinoliers, favres, freniers, furbisseurs and so on were all involved in the manufacture of arms and armour at the component creation or the assembly/construction stage. One person doesn't bang out a suit of armour; it's not so much a question of skill or permission as efficiency. The espinoliers manufacture metal pins. They are used by the armeour in the production of armour. They are also used by many other craftsmen for a wide variety of more mundane uses.

Oh, and here is my favourite anecdote relating to the concept that started this thread...

'Twas my fortune in a direct line to charge their general of horse (Note: Sir Arthur Hazelrigg, in charge of the Parliamentary horse at the battle of Roundaway Down on 13 July 1643); he discharged his carbine first, and afterwards one of his pistols, before I came up to him; and missed with both; I then immediately struck into him and touched him before I discharged mine, and I am sure I hit him for he staggered and presently wheeled off from his party. Follow him I did and discharged the other pistol at him and I'm sure I hit his head  for I touched it before I gave fire and it amazed him at that present but he was too well armed all over for a pistol bullet to do him any hurt, having a coat of mail over his arms and a headpiece musket-proof.

I came up to him again and having a very swift horse stuck by him for a good while and tried him from the head to the saddle and could not penetrate him or do him any hurt...

- Richard Atkyns, Cavalier

On hearing Atkyn's tale the King responded with a rare jest: had Sir Arthur "...been victualled as well as fortified he might have endured a siege...".

Cheers,

[Caz]

Yes, you pretty much confirmed everything I said.  There is a wealth of information on this, in original documents no less.  One book af european armour, that deals particularly with this subject, is The Armourer and his Craft, by Charles Ffoulkes.  
   Another thing that can add flavor to your games, most european plate armour was stamped with the armourers mark, just like many euro and most japanese swords.  At least if it was custom, non munition gear.

[Ian.Plumb]

Hi,

Yes, you pretty much confirmed everything I said.  There is a wealth of information on this, in original documents no less.  One book af european armour, that deals particularly with this subject, is The Armourer and his Craft, by Charles Ffoulkes.

Actually, to my way of thinking, what I described wasn't very similar to the process outlined in your post. The process you mentioned -- where an individual went through a qualification process in order to earn the right to manufacture and sell a specific piece of armour, with an external quality control mechanism in place -- represents a degree of centralised control that I find surprising.

In Lyon, the armeour produced armour, some of the components of which were manufactured by members of other métiers. There was no grading or licensing system within the armeours métier that was used to determine which particular members were permitted to manufacture and sell particular bits of armour. Nor was there an external quality control process, outside of market forces.

So you say Ffoulkes describes the where and when of the process you described?

Cheers,

[Caz]

Yeah, I c what you mean.  Obviously it varied from time and place, as most things do.  The system I described I think primarily existed in england, germany and italy, in the urban areas at least.  It's also possible that this system primarily catered to the upper class, though that's just speculation on my part.

[Mike Holmes]

I think that we all agree that there may have been better or worse armorers, but it's the efficiency thing. That is, if you make a crummy piece, you don't sell it, you start over again. Yes, there were likely slight variations in quality, but probably not enough to make a difference in terms of AV. I think a poor fit might be more common (especially as the result of equipment liberated from foes or other field expedient armamaments) with actual penalties to CP if you use it anyhow.

OTOH, if you did somehow get a crummy or run down suit of armor, I'd have no problem with downgrading it's AV by a point or maybe two in extrame cases (rusted?).

But the AV listed is for your standard grade of well maintained armor, I'd assume, which would be what you'd most commonly encounter (the value being what it is). And as mentioned above, that AV seems realistic. Yes, bouncing musket balls is "Silly Damage Resistance". That's why you'd wear something that heavy.

Mike