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.

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.

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

Samson wrote:
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.

Ingenious wrote: 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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

Hi,

Caz wrote: 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.

Oxford Book of Military Anecdotes wrote: '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

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.

Hi,

Caz wrote: 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.

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.

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

Is everyone else missing the obvious flaw in orginal msg ?

"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 "

This is example is kinda stupid ...with STR of 8 situation would be quite different. Plate armor costs lots of dicepool , which means less defence/offence.

I make a another example to show how ridicilous 1st one is.

Average Adult: ST of 4 and armed with club
Average Children: TO of 1

which one gets his ass kicked ?

Greatsword guy from orginal example is obviously out of his leagua and should get his ass kicked for beeing so stupid to get in to fight with Stalnish knight.

Ian.Plumb wrote: Hi,

Caz wrote: 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?