I was looking at the character creation process as modeled in the revised printing of TROS.. and came across something that I'd like clarified:

Vhord von Drieder, our intrepid Stahlnish knight-errant, is kitted out in full mail and a plate cuirass. I would assume that this would give him an AV of 10 for those locations protected by both. Yet, the model character sheet only gives him an AV of 6..

Is this simply a mistake? Or have I misunderstood the rules concerning armor?

Sneaky Git wrote: I was looking at the character creation process as modeled in the revised printing of TROS.. and came across something that I'd like clarified:

Vhord von Drieder, our intrepid Stahlnish knight-errant, is kitted out in full mail and a plate cuirass. I would assume that this would give him an AV of 10 for those locations protected by both. Yet, the model character sheet only gives him an AV of 6..

Is this simply a mistake? Or have I misunderstood the rules concerning armor?

Jake Norwood wrote: Armor doesn't compound.

It might be so that a blow strong enough to go trough plate will just fly through the chain as well.

Mokkurkalfe wrote: It might be so that a blow strong enough to go trough plate will just fly through the chain as well.

There isn't actually chain under the plate. Even if there was, though, the major advantage of armor isn't it's absorption qualities, but rather its ability to deflect and disperse damage. How can chain underneath plate do that?

Jake

I don't know the physics of how it does, but it does! Plate + chain is definitely more protective than just chain by itself. If armor under plate isn't helpful at all why did anyone bother adding metal plates to armor like with scale armor or "plate and maille"?

Mokkurkalfe wrote: It might be so that a blow strong enough to go trough plate will just fly through the chain as well.

ShaneNINE wrote: I don't know the physics of how it does, but it does! Plate + chain is definitely more protective than just chain by itself. If armor under plate isn't helpful at all why did anyone bother adding metal plates to armor like with scale armor or "plate and maille"?

I hope there is a BIG section about armor in tFoB.
And that they are listed in the way you buy them(no "one metal shoulder cup: 15s"). And nice descriptions. And pictures.

There is a HarnMaster/RoleMaster site by Klaus Æ. Mogensen that backs up what Jake is saying about multiple layers of armour at http://hjem.get2net.dk/Klaudius/Harn1.htm, at least with regards to protection from impact forces. Basically, the protective value of multiple layers is actually computed by taking the square root of the sum of the squares. If you use this method with the previous example you come up with 7 or 8 depending on whether you use normal rounding rules or not (6^2+4^2)^1/2=~7.75. I know that this is true from a physics standpoint when dealing with a force. The only thing cumulative about multiple layers is if you were trying to figure damage done by an edge or point impact. In other words the protection from the force of the blow (or a compressive force i.e. a bear hug) is actually figured by figuring the square root of the sum of the squares, and the damage done by the point or edge of a weapon is figured cumulatively.

That last post reminds me, can we expect to see any optional rules on armour and weapon damage? I have always heard that shields, in particular, never lasted long in heavy combat.

That last post reminds me, can we expect to see any optional rules on armour and weapon damage? I have always heard that shields, in particular, never lasted long in heavy combat.

Durgil wrote: That last post reminds me, can we expect to see any optional rules on armour and weapon damage? I have always heard that shields, in particular, never lasted long in heavy combat.

mail armour is made as thick as possible within the constraint of weight. So is plate. If I combine a suit of each I get armour which is far too heavy to wear.
Why would I have armour that is only half as heavy as I can comfortably wear? Just to be able to wear 2 suits? No.
Combining 2 full suits of armour would never work.
Plate and Chain is less advandced plate. Instead of articulated joints it has bits of mail dangling over your joints and at any areas not covered by plate.
Full plate is made of thick metal plates covering everything. Any thicker and it would be too heavy to fight effectively.

Early suits of plate were full suits of mail with relatively small metal plates attached to certain places such as the elbows, knees, and shoulders. European metallurgy during this early period could not produce large pieces such as breastplates and backplates. You may argue whether a knight wore a mail haulberk with a back and breast plate over it, but the attaching of small plates over mail did occure from the early 1100's to the late 1200's at least. Now the person of that age who could afford that kind of protection might have been so far up the chain of command that they didn't anticipate have to swing their sword and only wore it for protection from stray arrows and the like. My sources are Dr. Alen Williams, the Metallurgical Archeologist of the Royal Armoury at Leeds and David Edge, who wrote Arms and Armor of the Medieval Knight (an excellant read!).

Whoa! I'm not talking about wearing plate armor AND chain armor (complete sets) at once. I'm talking about wearing chain with metal plates strapped on top to the thigh or arms or chest. I'm no expert by far so I don't know what that would be called (I had thought it was "plate and maille"), but I've seen this in museums in Norway, Switzerland (awesome museum of medieval warfare in Zurich), and England (<- I think - I was 12 at the time).

I've also seen leather plates on top of chain.

My argument was on the assumption of adding these strapped on plates (or overlapping strips as in scale armor) over other armor such as leather or chain NOT wearing a complete set of chain under articulated plate. Sorry about the confusion - I should have been clearer.

ShaneNINE wrote: My argument was on the assumption of adding these strapped on plates (or overlapping strips as in scale armor) over other armor such as leather or chain NOT wearing a complete set of chain under articulated plate. Sorry about the confusion - I should have been clearer.

Mike Holmes wrote: Do you stand by that statement, or did you misread the initial post? Should armor add, or should it not if it overlaps?

As a corrollary, then, should armor composed of strapped on plates as you describe having existed (and which Durgil already pointed out existed) have a higher armor value than either of the component armors? If so, should it be the addition of the two values of the component parts? Or some other figure?

Almost non of the armor value, shaneNINE, comes from the quilt. It comes from the chain. The quilt is there to keep the chain from giving you a TERRIBLE rash all over your body (not to mention abrasions that leave you bleeding everywhere).

In suits of plate, chain was used to cover the parts of a person that could not easily be covered by plate (plate and maille). In the best of circumstances, this could be only the armpit and the inside of the knee and elbow. Under less ideal circumstances, one would have more chain and less plate.

If you wish to use an improved chain shirt, that could have an armor value of 4 or even 5, depending on how much you pay for it. It might have plates of leather or steel upon it, in order to get such an armor value, but it is still considered a shirt of chain.

If you wish to have less than spectacular plate armor, you may opt to spend less and have protection of only 4 or even 3 in the areas that are difficult to cover with plate (groin, elbow, knee, armpit, neck, etc.)

At least, this is how I see it and what I would tell you if you were in my session. I would let you describe your armor however you wanted, but how much protection is offered depends on how much you are willing to pay and what you are trying to buy.

Sneaky Git wrote:
Speaking about weapon damage.. the rules for half-swording (p62) claim that "the Attack Target Number (ATN) when half-swording is 5, and the Defending Target Number (DTN) is 6."

Are these values for every weapon with which you may use this maneuver (Bastard, Long, and Great Swords.. and the Doppelhander), regardless of the variances in initial values?

Sneaky Git wrote: And what about Poleaxes? Although "techniques similar to the 'half-sword' allow many close-combat possibilities" (p254), the poleaxe proficiency does not explicitly allow for such maneuvers. Does this mean poleaxes do not get the improved ATN & DTN? Nor the shortened engagement range?

Regardless, though, yes I do stand by my statement. Armor values should overlap. And so should CP penalties and such. In the case of a full suit of chain worn under a full suit of plate, the penalties should be steep enough to keep anyone from doing it.

But you should be able to mix and match armor types to get one set of mixed armor. Just because you want leather and chain doesn't mean you have to wear a full set of leather and a full set of chain. Something like leather plates to cover shoulders, forearms, knees, thighs, etc, seems totally reasonable to me.

Personally, I favor a system where you put your armor together piece by piece and add up the protective values. If I want my character to wear a leather vest over a gambeson, or a chain shirt over leather, or metal plates over leather, the system should be able to support that.

Armor composed of strapped on plates should have a higher value than either of the component parts. It should be the addition of the underlying armor and the strap on plates.

I don't know about CP penalties, though. I don't know TROS well enough to hazard a guess how much of a CP penalty adding metal plates would warrant.

Lyrax wrote: Almost non of the armor value, shaneNINE, comes from the quilt. It comes from the chain. The quilt is there to keep the chain from giving you a TERRIBLE rash all over your body (not to mention abrasions that leave you bleeding everywhere).

Lyrax wrote: In suits of plate, chain was used to cover the parts of a person that could not easily be covered by plate (plate and maille). In the best of circumstances, this could be only the armpit and the inside of the knee and elbow. Under less ideal circumstances, one would have more chain and less plate.

quot;Mike Holmes]Despite the arguments from others here that it doesn't work that way not the least of which includes information from Harn (long recognized as the most historical of RPG sources)

Armorers are not the experts we should be consulting. They know a great deal, of course, about how to make armor. The problem is that we are talking about the business end of armor.

The experts to consult, then, are those who have been attacked while wearing armor. Since these are much more abundant in previous periods of time than this one, we must look to what has been done in history, and make the rules fit that.

Since nobody ever bothered with a full suit of chain and a full suit of plate, I don't think the rules should condone doing this. Jake's half-cumulative rule is, in my mind, plenty good.

Oh, and why don't we do armor layer by layer? Because they are a set. Nobody ever even considered wearing plate armor without something on underneath. Also, they are different kinds of armor. The plate armor keeps you from getting killed, and the quilted stuff makes it not only bearable to wear, but also bearable to get hit.

Hope this clarifies. If it doesn't, forget and ignore it.

A gambeson, which is what that quilted undergarment is called, has no real armor effect of it's own against impact. "Armor-grade" leather doesn't have much by itself, either for that matter. Chainmail's primary purpose to avoid injury by cutting, though it worked decently with wider bladed thrusting strikes as well. Putting this under plates is going to have a rapidly diminishing return against the impact of an attack. Rigid plates, whether metal or boiled leather, are the only thing which can really resist impact.

I've taken hits on bare cloth which is equivalent to a gambeson, and I've taken hits on "armor-grade" (meaning about 1/4" thick, but not cuirboulli) leather over cloth as well, and it hurts about as much as a bare-skin hit would. The leather had some effect (as such, I *might* give equivalent stuff in TRoS an AV of 1, if I were feeling generous) but the cloth.. none.

The only real purpose of a gambeson is to avoid armor bites (where you get pinched by two bordering plates when struck right) and to avoid chafing and rubbing. It isn't to protect you against being hit, but to protect you against your own armor.

Let's put it another way.. If you're wearing plate, you're going to be nigh invincible in any place that it covers already (AV 6, plus an average toughness of 4 equals a Damage Reduction of 10; I've only seen a few hits with more than 10 damage, and never one with more than 13). The additional amount of protection of adding chain in that area wouldn't be worth the stiff CP penalties. I'd allow you to do it, and to even directly stack the AV... but what I would also do is double the CP penalties of the more unwieldy pieces of armor. Layering massively decreases your mobility. Sure, you might be invincible.. But if you can't move, I'll just knock you over and stab a dagger into the gaps of your gorget.

Lyrax wrote:
Almost non of the armor value, shaneNINE, comes from the quilt. It comes from the chain. The quilt is there to keep the chain from giving you a TERRIBLE rash all over your body (not to mention abrasions that leave you bleeding everywhere).

Lyrax wrote:
In suits of plate, chain was used to cover the parts of a person that could not easily be covered by plate (plate and maille). In the best of circumstances, this could be only the armpit and the inside of the knee and elbow. Under less ideal circumstances, one would have more chain and less plate.

Mike Holmes wrote:

Armor composed of strapped on plates should have a higher value than either of the component parts. It should be the addition of the underlying armor and the strap on plates.

And your evidence other than personal opinion is..?

Lyrax wrote: Oh, and why don't we do armor layer by layer? Because they are a set. Nobody ever even considered wearing plate armor without something on underneath. Also, they are different kinds of armor. The plate armor keeps you from getting killed, and the quilted stuff makes it not only bearable to wear, but also bearable to get hit.

Wolfen wrote: A gambeson, which is what that quilted undergarment is called, has no real armor effect of it's own against impact.

Wolfen wrote: Rigid plates, whether metal or boiled leather, are the only thing which can really resist impact.

Wolfen wrote: I've taken hits on bare cloth which is equivalent to a gambeson, and I've taken hits on "armor-grade" (meaning about 1/4" thick, but not cuirboulli) leather over cloth as well, and it hurts about as much as a bare-skin hit would.

Wolfen wrote: The only real purpose of a gambeson is to avoid armor bites (where you get pinched by two bordering plates when struck right) and to avoid chafing and rubbing. It isn't to protect you against being hit, but to protect you against your own armor.

Question:
Would a quilt matter at all if I gave it a good schwung with a sword or a warhammer?

Why on earth should someone then wear quilt under his chainmail and not... silk, for example?! 'Cause it looks so cool when shining through the mail? Crap, I say!

So ideally, the system should account for how much force is landed by a weapon and nullify a portion of that force due to the various layers of protection at the location of the blow. With the remaining force and the type of weapon used (i.e. edged, point, or blunt), determine how much blunt trauma is inflicted to the said area and in the case of edged or pointed weapons, whether that remaining force is sufficient enough to penetrate one or more of the layers of protection.

Try to imagine a powerful swing of a broadsword landing on the side of a knight wearing a mail hauberk over a quilt gambeson. A certain amount of that force would be negated by the mail and quilt layers (slightly more by the quilt layer, IMO), but there is enough force left to break a few ribs and causing organ damage to the lungs and internal bleeding. It also takes a certain amount of force to cut through the mail with the edge of the sword. If the force left from the combined armour absorption is great enough, it will slice through the mail as well as easily cutting through the quilt.

A bit complicated I admit, but this game does such an excellent job of simulating the intricacies melee combat, then surely we should be able to formulate more realist rules on armour as well.

I do not mean to step on anyone’s toes here or start a flame war. I’m just trying to gain a better understand of how things really work and to try add something to the game.

Mokkurkalfe wrote: Question:
I thought(learned from countless RPG's that said that soft armor protects from mass weapons) that the quilt protected the wearer from the impact, while the chainmail took care of the cutting(they were mostly intended to protect from swords after all).
Since reenactments are more about the impact and less about the cutting edge, my guess would be that the gambeson is even more important there.

Sir Eldaen wrote:
Wrong. Plain wrong. There'll be no rash. Chain feels cool and smooth on skin. The only problem is hair. If you wear a chain hood and your hair isn't trimmed at least as short as half an inch, you might experience severe problems with the hairs tangling in the rings of the mail. Body hair is different, however - there are none or almost none such problems.

Sir Eldaen wrote:
Quilt gives no protection?! Allright, tonight we have reenactment training session - I'll go and tell the ones who wear only quilt. I suppose we'll all die laughing. Why on earth should someone then wear quilt under his chainmail and not... silk, for example?! 'Cause it looks so cool when shining through the mail? Crap, I say!

Sir Eldaen wrote:
HA!!! Come on - give it a try! Try putting on a chain hauberk that is closed in the arm pits and then try to lift your arm... Shoulder height is the limit! ALL chain mails were open in the arm pits. And most quilt tunics were, too. But that's not mainly because of movements but rather because of temperature.

Sir Eldaen wrote:
But that limits your options as a player what to wear underneath... where's the details?

Sir Eldaen wrote:
Try it with bare skin and then compare again... :-) Believe me, I did both and there are differences. Not too much for cloth and leather, I agree, but quilt? Most definately yes.

Are you trying to tell me that the quilted gambeson was only worn for comfort?

Look, Medieval padding was not quilted in the modern sense; it was typically tubes of linen, wool, or fustian and stuffed with a variety of materials such as horse hair, linen, or wool-this applies both to helmet padding and to gambesons or arming coats. They didn't do this out of a love for tubular styled clothes; they did that to protect themselves from the impact of their metal plates hitting their flesh. Hasn't anyone here ever played crochet? When the two balls are side by side, you stick your foot on top of one of them and whack it. The other ball goes flying off as if it has been hit because it essentially has been hit.

The ideal protection against any force is to absorb most or all of it with padding, but in our situation with cutting and piercing weapons, just padding alone would end up getting chopped to bits. So, you put a metal skin over it. In the early middle Ages, due to their limited technology, mail was the metal skin over their padding. Later, they were able to attach metal plates to the mail; think of them as miniature metal shields. Later still, technology advanced so that they were able to connect a lot of these little metal shields in such a manner that it didn’t considerably restrict movement and could therefore get rid of, at first, some of the mail, and as time went on most or all of the mail.

Now if you want to say that the values in the book reflect the multiple layers, than that’s fine, but don’t try to tell me that the only layer that mattered to defense was the outer layer or the best protective layer. If that’s the case, then you might as well go back to using hit points IMHO.

Durgil wrote: Are you trying to tell me that the quilted gambeson was only worn for comfort?

The ideal protection against any force is to absorb most or all of it with padding, but in our situation with cutting and piercing weapons, just padding alone would end up getting chopped to bits. So, you put a metal skin over it.

While it has some function in absorbing blunt shock (something it still doesn't do at all well,) its PRIMARY purpose is to protect the wearer from his armor (whether discomfort or potential lethality.)

Okay gentlemen, sounds to me like this argument is getting a little heated. Let's not give Ron or Jake a reason to chastise when they come back, eh? Keep it civil, keep it unemotional. Or else, find each other, put on armor, and beat each other in an effort to prove your points upon the body of your opponent. It's not only stress-relieving, but it's fun, too.

Durgil wrote: And by the way, I played 9 years of football with a couple on the collegiant level, and if the discomfort of just the hard plastic against you skin was the only reason to put the pads underneath, then why not something lighter and less bulky, like a medium thickness cloth shirt and a bandana underneath you helmet?

That's not the ONLY reason for the metal skin. Padding, by itself, won't stop blunt-force trauma. The foam padding inside a football helmet, for example, would be almost worthless in stopping a hammer-blow (while the helmet does well enough.) Thus the thin layer of plastic outside. It has two major functions:

While it has some function in absorbing blunt shock

Durgil wrote:

And by the way, I played 9 years of football with a couple on the collegiant level, and if the discomfort of just the hard plastic against you skin was the only reason to put the pads underneath, then why not something lighter and less bulky, like a medium thickness cloth shirt and a bandana underneath you helmet? Both the hard, rounded surface and the pads are neaded to prevent serious injury on the battle field and the playing field.

*sighs, shakes his head*

That's exactly what I was saying. Try reading what I type next time.

The padding's there to stop the plastic from giving you a concussion, the plastic's there to stop whatever's OUTside it from giving you a concussion. Neither is particularly valulable alone, thus why buying armor in layers is silly.

The padding's there to stop the plastic from giving you a concussion, the plastic's there to stop whatever's OUTside it from giving you a concussion.

Um, wasn't the question wether plate and chain shoud accumulate their AV's or not?
Since every armour, without exception, has quilt beneath it, this discussion is pretty pointless in a tRoS point of view.
Still interesting, though...

Yes, and we decided that armor is bought in sets (gambeson + plate or chain) because it's suicidal to use one without the other.

I believe this is how the subject started which, in turn, brought out these other related points, questions, and observations.

Sneaky Git wrote: Vhord von Drieder, our intrepid Stahlnish knight-errant, is kitted out in full mail and a plate cuirass. I would assume that this would give him an AV of 10 for those locations protected by both. Yet, the model character sheet only gives him an AV of 6.

The way I see it, metal armor doesn't "layer" very well. Armor scavenging, however, is likely to make a person armored in some places and unarmored in others. See the "armor" table in Book IV: The Codex of Battle in The Book for some information regarding what individual armor parts have what armor values.

Yikes!

Look what happens when I'm gone...

Referring to the use of attacking plates over various places on a suit of chain, such as disks over the pecs, and plate on the elbows, etc., make the DR 6 on those spots (or maybe 5 on the chest spots), and call it good.

Armor rules in TROS are simple for a few reasons:

While I know lots of stuff about Blossfechten (unarmored fighting) and about how to kill a guy in armor, I know little other than academic information and SCA experience with armor...which I will admit is very little. What I do know is that armor both deflects and disperses the force of a successful attack. Because in TROS damage comes from both force and sill, a single armor rating is sufficient and quick. Part of TROS's claim to fame in the "realistic combat" sense is that, like combat, it's fast and based on a participant's decisions.

I'm curious to see those house rules.

And remember, whatever our sources, we know *jack* about real armor in a fight. The fight interpereters at Royal Armories in Leeds know more than any of us do or probably will, and even they aren't in the habit of stiking at one another with intent to kill. Techniques with a sword are easier to re-create and understand. Armor is hard, and if we get into complicated rules we enter into a pretention that we know something that a bunch of gamer can't possibly understand beyond acadamia and pretentious claims from SCA/Boffer fighting/test cutting against stationary objects (which is the best of the 3, but still not enough).

Jake

I honestly believe many of you are overthinking the situation. Basically, the rules allow for an AV of up to 6 in any given spot. Do you disagree, and believe that's too weak given the strength of the weapons? I believe that AV 10 is way, way out of line.

-Jeff

Not to be totally contrary, but high-quality armor can get up to 7 or 8 in armor value. Any more though, and I agree that magic would need to be involved.

If anyone here is interested, I've submitted some house rules that are heavily influenced by HarnMaster at this website http://www.shadowharn.net/viewtopic.php?t=884&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=. Please, let me know what you think.

Lyrax wrote: Yes, and we decided that armor is bought in sets (gambeson + plate or chain) because it's suicidal to use one without the other.

I'd say that the general levy has several options:

A) Use no armor.

B) Use cheap armor.

C) Use the lord of the land's armor.

Soldiers can take option C) because the lord of the land buys their armor, raiders and such often take option B) and most peasants prefer option A) because they wish to stay away from getting killed.

The levy is unlikely to have armour; hell they may not even have weapons so much as sticks and assorted farming implements. A wealthy peasant may be expected to keep, by law, a gambeson or leather jerkin which would be worn probably with a skull cap or pot helm. If you are thinking of actual men-at-arms, they will likely be armed at their lords expense. Mercenaries pay for their own.

A wealthy peasant may be expected to keep, by law, a gambeson or leather jerkin which would be worn probably with a skull cap or pot helm.

contracycle wrote: The levy is unlikely to have armour; hell they may not even have weapons so much as sticks and assorted farming implements. A wealthy peasant may be expected to keep, by law, a gambeson or leather jerkin which would be worn probably with a skull cap or pot helm.

If you are thinking of actual men-at-arms, they will likely be armed at their lords expense. Mercenaries pay for their own.

Lyrax wrote: Not to be totally contrary, but high-quality armor can get up to 7 or 8 in armor value. Any more though, and I agree that magic would need to be involved.

Durgil wrote: In the books, the spear thrown by that orc didn't pierce that armour, but it didn't protect him from the force of the blow. It knocked the wind out of him plus it knocked him off of his feet.

Actually, that mythril shirt must have protected him from a lot of the blunt trauma.. It was a cave troll, if I remember, that got him with a thrust (not a throw). It would have crushed his ribcage even if it didn't pierce... but it's fantasy, and I think Mike's suggestion is perfectly suitable, and one I would probably use.

So let's check the math here... I'm wearing chain (AV 4) and I have a TO of 4. I get hit by a barbarian with ST 4 wielding a greatsword... His cumulative successes are, (arbitrarily) 2, so that makes the total damage of the attack a 9 before taking out TO, for a 5, then the armor takes away another 4, leaving a cut of 1 to, say zone III, location: ribcage. Throwing in Mike's suggestion, that also throws in a bashing wound of 1 to the ribcage.. Let's break down the effects...

Cut Zone III location ribcage:
BL: 0
Shock: 2
Pain: 4-WP

Bludgeon Zone III location ribcage:
BL: 0
Shock: 5-WP
Pain: 4-WP

(assume WP = 4) This leaves a total:

BL: 0
Shock: 3
Pain: 0

Hm... Better, but still not good enough... I think it worth considering that flexible armors (certain types of leather, chain, scale, brigs, etc.) transfer to bludgeoning at a rate of 2:1 from cutting, but 3:1 from piercing, which would have knocked the Bludgeon effects to a level 2 wound, for the following effects:
BL: 0
S: 4
P: 5-WP

for a cumulative:
BL: 0
S: 6
P: 1

Which seems suitable for taking a greatsword to the ribs, even through chain. What do you guys think?

Also, if we're thinking through this, I think it worthwhile to say that blunt damage uses the same transfer rates against flexible armors, to illustrate their relative ineffectiveness to blunt trauma.

::shrugs:: BUT we might just be overthinking things.

In the books, it was a big orc that ran by everyone to skewer Frodo. In the movies, it was a cave troll who tossed everyone around like a rag doll and made funny noises.

I doubt this changes much, but we need to keep the important things straight. :-)

-Jeff

Wolfen wrote: Actually, that mythril shirt must have protected him from a lot of the blunt trauma.. It was a cave troll, if I remember, that got him with a thrust (not a throw).

Wolfen wrote: I think it worth considering that flexible armors (certain types of leather, chain, scale, brigs, etc.) transfer to bludgeoning at a rate of 2:1 from cutting, but 3:1 from piercing, which would have knocked the Bludgeon effects to a level 2 wound, for the following effects:
BL: 0
S: 4
P: 5-WP

for a cumulative:
BL: 0
S: 6
P: 1

Which seems suitable for taking a greatsword to the ribs, even through chain. What do you guys think?

Also, if we're thinking through this, I think it worthwhile to say that blunt damage uses the same transfer rates against flexible armors, to illustrate their relative ineffectiveness to blunt trauma.

It was merely an orc that threw a spear in the book. I not going to try to rationalize theatrics ; )

Please forgive me. My comment was a slight against the Movie, not the Book! I like the book version much better. Mithril or not, IMC, if something like that scene in the movie would have happened, Frodo would have had a spear sheathed in mithril mail through him. : ) A humanoid creature that's 12 to 14 feet tall, IMO, has to be so strong just to get around, that if he was to get a hold of you, he could literally tear you limb from limb as easily as you and I can rip apart pieces of boiled chicken.

Well, maybe not that easily, but you get the picture.

Durgil wrote: A humanoid creature that's 12 to 14 feet tall, IMO, has to be so strong just to get around, that if he was to get a hold of you, he could literally tear you limb from limb as easily as you and I can rip apart pieces of boiled chicken.

Well, maybe not that easily, but you get the picture.

It wasn't a 12 to 14 foot Troll.

It was a 6 to 8 foot orc.

Still scary, but not "throwing people around like rag dolls" scary.

Besides mithril is special, and should have its own rules. I think the current rules are more than good enough for mundane armor. Remember that mass weapons can cause LOTS of shock, even when they don't deal an armor-piercing wound.

We already aggread that it was an orc, now we're talking about a 12' to 14' tall Cave Troll, and as far as special rules for mithril, why? Just because it's magically created and the hardest metal known to the free peoples of Middle-earth and Sauron, doesn't change the fact that Frodo's shirt was still mail and should act as such. Please don't start pulling RoleMaster on us by giving magical chain "plate" like qualities.

remember that some of the force is used pushing the target over, it converts to kinetic energy. I don;t remember either seen well enough, but if frodo falls or flies you may well not need to account for every erg. in fact, seeing as frodo's mass is going to be less than either troll or orc, you'd expect him to move. Lastly, the mithril is not going to stretch, so when its trying to pentrate the body on the end of the spear tip, it is applying force across the whole inside circumference of the armour, which is quite large. So there :)

first frodo and the spear,

Tolkien wrote
But even as they retreated ... A huge orc-chieften ... Leaped into the hamber; behind him his followers clustered in the dorway. ..... With a Thrust of his huge hide shield he turned boromir's sword and bore him backwards, throwing him to the ground. Diving under Aragorn's blow with the speed of a striking snake he charged into the company and thrust his spear straight at Frodo. The blow caught him on the right side, and frodo was hurled against the wall and pinned.

TROS Bludgeoning Dammage zone III ribcage
BL: 1 shock: 8 Pain: 6-WP
Winded, maybe with a broken rib.
May lose consciousness (+2)

TROS Puncturing Dammage zone V chest
Pierced heart. Death is nearly instantaneous

I'm sorry it has taken me so long to reply to you commit, Thirsty Viking. I've been mulling over your last post, which I must say is quite good. I'd still argue over the quilt gambeson "not being real effective against any damage."

That is just not supported in any of the literature that I have. Also, when I talk about different layers of armour, I'm not trying to account for a person who is wearing the mail without the gambeson, it's the circumstance of wearing the mail with something other than quilt such as over leather or a heavy cloth that I’m trying to account for. Those should be adequate to protect the wearer from chaffing, but shouldn't provide as good of protection than wearing the mail over quilt. The quilt on its own is a decent form of protection, if that’s all you've got money or expertise to come up with, and I have also seen examples of it having metal rings sown on to it to or studded to help augment its protection from edged weapons.

I guess it just comes down to personal tastes. I really love the combat of The Riddle of Steel, I just want to see more detail when it comes to armour and its uses.

Durgil wrote: I'm sorry it has taken me so long to reply to you commit, Thirsty Viking. I've been mulling over your last post, which I must say is quite good. I'd still argue over the quilt gambeson "not being real effective against any damage."

That is just not supported in any of the literature that I have. Also, when I talk about different layers of armour, I'm not trying to account for a person who is wearing the mail without the gambeson, it's the circumstance of wearing the mail with something other than quilt such as over leather or a heavy cloth that I’m trying to account for.

Those should be adequate to protect the wearer from chaffing, but shouldn't provide as good of protection than wearing the mail over quilt. The quilt on its own is a decent form of protection, if that’s all you've got money or expertise to come up with, and I have also seen examples of it having metal rings sown on to it to or studded to help augment its protection from edged weapons.

I guess it just comes down to personal tastes. I really love the combat of The Riddle of Steel, I just want to see more detail when it comes to armour and its uses.

I've been playing around with some house rules of my own on this matter. You can check them out here.

And by the way, that is an excellant post on the "Ambidexterity Post." I've been poping back in all afternoon waiting for Jake's response.