While I suspect that something like this may be covered in TFOB, I keenly feel the need to ask anyway...

I notice that the core book mentions on page 203 that characters are permitted to purchase armour that affords protection of one or two AV above the usual rating for that armour type.

Could this be used to reflect different types/styles/levels of development of plate armour?

To draw an example from European history:

I would think that a north Italian harness from the latter half of the fifteenth century like this one

http://www.whiterosearmoury.co.uk/scarab%20070.jpg

would provide its wearer with substantially more protection than, say, an armour of the late fourteenth century

http://www.whiterosearmoury.co.uk/scarab%20058.jpg

and likely more than a contemporary German "Gothic" harness (though I think that the gothic harness might be said to reduce the wearer's CP less...)

http://www.whiterosearmoury.co.uk/High%20gothic%20harness%20web.JPG


Is this what the optional rule of allowing players to purchase more potent armour is intended to represent? It would seem to make sense to me. I don't think all those armours provide the same level of protection, even if by strict TROS standards they are all "a full suit of plate armour: AV 6". If the 14th century early plate harness merits an AV rating of 6, then surely the later Italian armour deserves at least a 7...

The AV is the strength of the armour, not how much area it covers. That's handled by hit location rules. AV, area covered, and other CP and per mods pretty much cover all the differences.
AV can cover the thickness and quality of protection. I give an average AV of 7 to tilting armour, and an average of 5 to field armour.
The AV also depends on hit location. Say, AV3 for finger plates on gauntlets (generally the thinnest part of armour), AV 6 on the breastplate, AV 5 on the back. A milanese harness like you pointed out could actually give a higher AV in spots due to overlapping. It could have a massive AV on the shoulders where the pauldron overlaps the breastplate, for example. But it's not any thicker or stronger than the german armour. You could say it's stronger than the 14th c armour due to more advanced methods making the metal stronger, and it definitely covers more area with plate.

Personally, having seen modern methods of steel production as well as 'ancient' ones, the different methods used to heat-treat and quench metal make an ENORMOUS difference in the durability and strength of it.
Ask any blacksmith/swordsmith/bladesmith etc. There are vastly different processes that go into making armor, swords, steel in general and such. Thickness doesn't matter, quality does. And of course from a historical standpoint, later armors do in fact protect more than earlier periods.
The height of armor making was at the time when cannons and guns began to replace swords and archers and junk. Though at that point the armor was not effective against guns at all... it certainly was excellent against bladed weapons. Hell, you could be running an adventure where the armor was the best in it's historical day, and not even have guns around yet. Just use some common sense on this. Follow these simple rules too: higher quality armor protects better, but is ALOT more expensive. Thickness means nothing.
There, and for example.. the high strength that steel can have. Example, the legendary katana. How much steel goes into making a katana? How thick is it? It isn't about any of that, it's all about the heating, and the re-heating of the steel... along with the multi-thousands of times they fold it before it even assumes the SHAPE of a sword. Now compare eastern swordmaking with western. Eastern swords were made very high quality, and it took so much time to make them accordingly. Weapons of say, France or England were mass-produced... and they didn't really know how to get the impurities out of steel... hence, one of the swords from France or some damned place might shatter on impact with a rock, or it might bend and stay bent.
So just take this topic and think about it logically for a second; what time period are you in? The country you are running the game in models what historical medieval place? What's the quality of craftsmanship for the item? etc etc etc.

-Ingenious

Ingenious says:
"Eastern swords were made very high quality, and it took so much time to make them accordingly. Weapons of say, France or England were mass-produced... and they didn't really know how to get the impurities out of steel... hence, one of the swords from France or some damned place might shatter on impact with a rock, or it might bend and stay bent."

You believed the katana hype a little too much my friend... They are not better quality. But this is a common error people make - you need not feel embarassed, for it is one easily corrected.

The reason the Katana was folded so many times and hammered on was to reduce the impurities in the sand iron ore that the Japanese smiths had to work with. European smiths had better steel to work with from the beginning, and on the whole european swords tended to be more flexible than thier japanese counterparts.

This can be seen in modern testcutting on straw mats... Katana's have been know to take a bend if the cut was not done correctly - European swords will tend to flex but return to true under the same conditions.

And yes the europeans mass produced weapons that could have been of "lesser" quality... But if you don't think that the Japanese mass produced weapons of "lesser" quality as well to arm thier armies you are living in a fantasy word.

If you don't believe me, go to: www.swordforum.com -and ask questions on thier bladesmith forums.
If you don't believe them, go to: www.thearma.org -and they'll basically tell you the same thing.

Thickness does make a difference. In swords, the better the steel, the thinner it could be, the better it could cut. European swords were sometime half as thick as japanese ones. (though they cut using different methods so it didn't detract from asian blades effectiveness)
As for armour thickness.....
In the renaissance when they were using "proof" armour to stop bullets, do you think it was just better heat treated? Nope. It was the same treatment as normal armour, but it was thicker and heavier to stop the shot.

Caz wrote: Thickness does make a difference. In swords, the better the steel, the thinner it could be, the better it could cut. European swords were sometime half as thick as japanese ones. (though they cut using different methods so it didn't detract from asian blades effectiveness)
As for armour thickness.....
In the renaissance when they were using "proof" armour to stop bullets, do you think it was just better heat treated? Nope. It was the same treatment as normal armour, but it was thicker and heavier to stop the shot.

Cool info, thanks. I couldn't agree more, except for your personal opinion of nobles. I don't think it's fair to lump them into a peasant hating, pompous, careless fop category like it seems so cool to do nowdays.
They were one of the 3 tiers of society back then, and no less important than any other. True, war was their job, and their sport, but I doubt, even though they had the possibility of ransom, that they pranced through battle with the expectation of it to save them from death in war. After all, nobles were most effective when facing common soldiers in battle, and if your theory holds, they would be the ones least likely to capture him, as opposed to killing him. A leader is a leader, regardless of the age, some respect men, some don't, but all have to lead them. And to most nobles, peasants were not cheap. Especially the lower you go on the nobility scale. Even if they didn't like their townsfolk, their townsfolk were who their coffers relied on. And populations were, for the most part, bumpkin level as compared to nowdays, with few children surviving long enough to produce, making them more valuable and more intimate. Not to mention a nobles popularity among his men being as good as money back when words meant so much more. Sorry for the OT, I'm sure it'll make no sense to me when I read it again..

While thats true, that nobles were not a universally peasant-hating lot, there were many reasons for a highly conflicted relationship. In the first instance, the noble in Feudal europe is likely to be of a very different ethnicity than the peasantry. The Normans - themselves specifically the descendants of Vikings - conquored England, Ireland, Pomerania, Prussia, Muslim spain, Sicily, Cyprus and set up kingdoms in the holy land. And these are tax-taking statelets with a coercive relationship with a populace whose culture and values and social referants they probably don't share, and who were subjugated by main force and may well be considered hostile. There is no presumption here that any of these statelets are one people, with shared goals and problems. This kind of scenario encourages a "familiarity breeds contempt" view on the part of the nobility, for whom reinforcing their high status and and immunity to revenge is an important concern. When Richard the Lionheart was mortally wounded by a lowly crossbowman, he summoned the man to his tent and publicly forgave him; but this didn't stop his entourage flaying the man alive just to make sure that the word didn't get about that commoners could kill kings and expect to get away with it.

Caz wrote: Cool info, thanks.

I don't think it's fair to lump them into a peasant hating, pompous, careless fop category like it seems so cool to do nowdays.

They were one of the 3 tiers of society back then, and no less important than any other. True, war was their job, and their sport, but I doubt, even though they had the possibility of ransom, that they pranced through battle with the expectation of it to save them from death in war. After all, nobles were most effective when facing common soldiers in battle, and if your theory holds, they would be the ones least likely to capture him, as opposed to killing him. A leader is a leader, regardless of the age, some respect men, some don't, but all have to lead them.

And to most nobles, peasants were not cheap. Especially the lower you go on the nobility scale. Even if they didn't like their townsfolk, their townsfolk were who their coffers relied on. And populations were, for the most part, bumpkin level as compared to nowdays, with few children surviving long enough to produce, making them more valuable and more intimate. Not to mention a nobles popularity among his men being as good as money back when words meant so much more. Sorry for the OT, I'm sure it'll make no sense to me when I read it again..

contracycle wrote: While thats true, that nobles were not a universally peasant-hating lot, there were many reasons for a highly conflicted relationship.

In the first instance, the noble in Feudal europe is likely to be of a very different ethnicity than the peasantry. The Normans - themselves specifically the descendants of Vikings - conquored England, Ireland, Pomerania, Prussia, Muslim spain, Sicily, Cyprus and set up kingdoms in the holy land. And these are tax-taking statelets with a coercive relationship with a populace whose culture and values and social referants they probably don't share, and who were subjugated by main force and may well be considered hostile.

There is no presumption here that any of these statelets are one people, with shared goals and problems. This kind of scenario encourages a "familiarity breeds contempt" view on the part of the nobility, for whom reinforcing their high status and and immunity to revenge is an important concern.

When Richard the Lionheart was mortally wounded by a lowly crossbowman, he summoned the man to his tent and publicly forgave him; but this didn't stop his entourage flaying the man alive just to make sure that the word didn't get about that commoners could kill kings and expect to get away with it.

I read about that crossbow incident.... Wasn't that "friendly" fire? Accidental?

Caz wrote: I read about that crossbow incident.... Wasn't that "friendly" fire? Accidental?

Why did you guys drag the conversation off in that direction? I'm floored.

To bring the discussion back to its original topic...

I did not post the photos of different types of plate armour in order to point out that certain styles covered more of the wearer than others. Mostly, I wanted to indicate that, at least in the case of the Milanese harness, some armours featured a good deal of redundant protection.

Perhaps using the full suit of plate was a bad choice on my part. How about this, then:

Let's say my character wants to buy a breastplate, but not just any breastplate. He wants one with AV 7. What does the Seneschal do? Merely say "Okay. You commission a cuirass made of thicker, better steel than the sort commonly sold.", or could I insist that it be represented by one of those 15th century style Milanese cuirasses, with the reinforcing plackart and lower backplate forming a double layer of defense? Coverage isn't an issue, since as far as that is concerned, all cuirasses cover the same areas. Thus, the only way one breastplate can offer more protection than another is to either be made of something better, or to be thicker...

Sorry you got floored. Yeah the only way to change the AV if it covers the same area is quality, construction methods and/or thickness.
Milanese style cuirasses with the plackart and breastplate are no more protective, it's not redundant. The breast plate under the plackart only really covers what the plackart doesn't, it's a feature for extra mobility, not double protection. It also lets the user mix and match more if it's attached by strap and buckle.
Sounds like you're really just looking for game mechanics to differentiate. If you have a character with a notably heavier armour because for some reason it was made extra thick, you could have him get fatigued faster, or have a larger CP penalty. Often, the less articulated armour is, the better it protects, but the less flexibility you have, costing more CP. Just some ideas. Really most differences in armour styles or types aren't significant enough to warrant mechanics in the game.

Please forgive me in advance if I sound condescending...


Milanese armour from this period *is* redundant. Remarkably so, for its weight. I own and regularly fight in a very expensive and exacting reproduction of just such a harness. I also account myself more than adequately well-read on this subject, and spend entirely too much of my free time researching obscure topics related to it...

Probably the best resources on Italian armour from this period are certain books in Italian by Lionello Boccia. They are immensely costly, if you can even find them at all. However, one can find certain excerpts from them online, and this one I've found includes a fair number of photos from the collection of the Santa Maria delle Grazie monastery in Mantova, the world's largest and best-preserved concentration of late 15th and early 16th century homogenous plate harnesses of Italian manufacture. I paid my armourer handsomely to make doubly certain that nearly every feature on my own harness can be documented in these pages, and referred to them often...

http://www.thadenarmory.com/authentic_pics/larmatura_lombarda/pages/153b.htm

Here is a fairly typical example of the type of cuirass I have in mind. Notice just how much of the upper breastplate is covered by the lower one. Note also that much of the remainder of the upper breast is covered by the extremely large pauldrons:

http://www.thadenarmory.com/authentic_pics/larmatura_lombarda/pages/150a.htm

Look at the back, too. The overlap of the pauldrons concentrates several layers of metal here as well:

http://www.thadenarmory.com/authentic_pics/larmatura_lombarda/pages/151b.htm

If that isn't redundancy, then what is?

What about this breastplate? Only a small area around the lance-rest remains defended by one layer of steel:

http://www.thadenarmory.com/authentic_pics/larmatura_lombarda/pages/171a.htm

The pauldrons that are usually worn with armour like this almost invariably feature reinforcing plates, and those on the left side in particular must surely qualify as interposing several thicknesses of metal between a weapon and the wearer should a blow light there. Here is such a pauldron displayed, both with and without its reinforce, demonstrating the double layer of metal:

http://www.thadenarmory.com/authentic_pics/larmatura_lombarda/pages/164b.htm

Browse the rest of the photos. What about those arm harness? Between the enormous elbow defences, the long cuffs of the gauntlets, and the overlap of the pauldrons and rerebraces, nary a spot on the arm, especially the left, is covered by less than two layers. What about the armets? Wrappers and brow reinforces ensure that the head is afforded the protection of plenty of layers, too.

Superfluity of protection was precisely what the designers of this sort of armour had in mind. It seems to have been effective, too. Doesn't Philippe de Commynes say in his memoirs, recalling the battle of Fornovo in 1495 that it often took three or four Frenchmen armed with daggers, woodsmen's axes, and blocks of wood (incidentally, no long-swords/estocs, halberds, becs-de-corbin, or any other supposedly 'armour-piercing' weapons are chosen for the task...) to kill just one Italian clad in such near-perfect personal bodily protection?

Issues of coverage aside (and not yet going into the high quality of the metal used for these armours), why shouldn't harnesses like these merit an Armour Value rating of at least a 7, if one like this

http://www.thadenarmory.com/authentic_pics/larmatura_lombarda/pages/197.htm

grants the wearer an AV of 6?

Hey that makes 2 of us. I own and train in a milanese harness. Mine has less covering spaulders w/besagews though. Italian styles tend to use less articulation covering more area. It turns out the same weight as most other harnesses though (mine's only 55 lbs w/out gussets), meaning they don't use any more metal, meaning about equal AV, in game terms, but better coverage.
My harness has an armet w/brow reinforce, and gauntlets usually double up the vambraces, even my cuirass is the breastplate/plackart combo. Just about every piece overlaps another at some point, but I wouldn't call any of it redundant. I'd say german harnesses just leave too many openings for my preference!

"redundant" can mean "backup" as well as "useless", I note.

But the question is note whether or not armour a is thicker than armour b; the question is whether or not this quality justifies a whole point of AV in the given scale.

Fair enough.

Bringing weight (and thus the amount of metal) into the issue...

I submit that Italian cuirasses significantly outweighed contemporary German ones.

Consider that Boccia's "L'armatura Lombarda...etc, etc." lists most of the (slightly stripped down, you notice...) cuirasses of the mid/late fifteenth century harnesses depicted therein as being in the 16-18 pound range, and would probably approach twenty or more if they still had their culets, and side and rear tassets, more still if allowance is made for the loss of a few ounces to corrosion down the centuries.

Those ornate German "Gothic" cuirasses on the other hand, at least according to what literature I have on the subject never seem to get any heavier than 13 pounds or so, with most being substantially lighter, often not even ten pounds.

Now, I would guess that the built-in overlap of the Italian cuirass is likely what makes up much of the difference in weight, since the German ones, as can be demonstrated, do not continue the overlap of their articulated plates much further than they have to in order to obtain body coverage with one layer of metal.

At this point in history, it is unlikely that either the Germans or the Italians are practicing quenching and tempering methods that result in either's product being significantly harder (and thus making up for lack of metal thickness with metal quality), so I conclude that the average mid-to-late-fifteenth century Italian cuirass, by virtue of amount of metal interposed between wearer and weapon, affords more protection than the average contemporary German one.

I see nothing in the TROS rules that would lead me to believe that a German "gothic" cuirass should have less than an AV 6, so I would, in my game, reflect the Italian cuirass' superiority by awarding it an AV 7.

I have to admit that I'm not very knowledgable about plate armour styles. By gothic, are you guys referring to the maximillion style or flutted plate? If you are, then this type was supposed to be thinner and therefore lighter because they used the flutting to increase the strength of the metal plate. I'll have to check my sources, but I have always been under the impression that this was height of full, plate harness creation.

I hate to drag this out but I've heard far different about the weights. Compare a gothic cuirass to a milanese one. Size and protection are about the same. It's mostly the other parts that do the additional overlapping or whatnot. The cuirass would be roughly the same weight. Cuirasses alone, of german or italian style, averaged 10 to 18 pounds. There is no possible way the entire harness could only weight that much!

Don't worry about dragging it out. Now that the discussion is back on topic, this has been interesting. :)

I'm not sure, Caz, where you got your information, but all mine gives the weights as I described them earlier. I can do nothing else but repeat what my sources say. If you have better sources, by all means, share.

"L'armatura Lombarda" gives the weights in kilograms for each piece of each harness illustrated within. Here follow the weights for each of the pre-sixteenth century cuirasses from these harnesses, broken down into their component pieces, in both kilos and pounds:

Armour B1:
Petto/Schiena(upper breast and backplates): 3.333kg/7.33 lbs
Panziera/Guardarene(lower breast and backplates): 2.270kg/4.99 lbs
Falda Anteriore(frontal fauld): 1.9kg/4.18 lbs
Total: 7.503kg/16.506 lbs

Armour B2:
Petto/Schiena: 3.3kg/7.26 lbs
Panziera/Guardarene: 2.52kg/5.544 lbs
Falda Anteriore: 1.53kg/3.366 lbs
Total: 7.35kg/16.17 lbs

Armour B3:
Petto/Schiena: 3.2kg/7.04 lbs
Panziera/Guardarene: 2.4kg/5.28lbs
Falda Anteriore: 1.45kg/3.19lbs
Total: 7.05kg/15.51lbs

Armour B4:
Petto/Schiena: 3.335kg/7.337lbs
Panziera/Guardarene: 2.75kg/6.05lbs
Falda Anteriore: 1.26kg/2.772lbs
Total: 7.345kg/16.159lbs

Keep in mind, of course, that once the rear fauld, and the front, side, and rear tassets are in place, the weight would increase still more, possibly as much as four pounds, since the frontal tassets weigh in at around a pound or more apiece(most seem to be in the 400g to 700g range), and I'm guessing the rear faulds will weigh somewhat less than the frontal ones.

What's more, the above weights may actually be on the lighter end of weights for Italian cuirasses of this era. Oswald Graf Trapp's "The Armoury of the Castle Churburg", which is another large and fine collection of armour, much of it from the area and period we're concerned with, provides weights for many of the pieces contained therein as well. While we are used to hearing that field armours weighed around 55 pounds or so, it is clear that some of them, still made for normal-sized people (we won't bring up the harness for the nearly seven-foot tall man, whose cuirass alone approaches 45 pounds!), weighed somewhat more. The war harness of Galeazzo D'Arco, for instance, though it is missing its right arm defence, weighs more than 64 pounds.

Some exact figures on the weights of German cuirasses:

Churburg:
Breastplate & fauld: 3.15kg/6.93lbs
Backplate & fauld: 1.02kg/2.244lbs
Total: 4.17kg/9.174lbs

The famous 'Sigismund' Gothic harness (no kilogram figures):
Breastplate & fauld:7lbs 8oz
Backplate & fauld:5lbs 3oz
Total: 12lbs 11oz

Though slightly later (c.1510 or so), the cuirass from the 'Wladislas' harness depicted in the appendix of Edge & Paddock's "Arms and Armour of the Medieval Knight" weighs:
Breastplate & fauld: 2.7kg/5lbs 14oz
Backplate & fauld: 2.3kg/5lbs 1oz
Total: 5kg/10lbs 15oz

Recall also, the passage in Johan Hill's "Treatise of Worship in Arms" about how a man shall be armed which reads, in part: "...and then a pair of plates at 20 pounds weight...". It seems that it was no unusual thing at all for the cuirass to comprise a third or more of an armour's total mass.

Once again, I feel that this evidence earns the North Italian cuirass from the fifteenth century a somewhat higher AV rating than other styles. I still don't see how you could rate that double-thick breastplate

http://www.thadenarmory.com/authentic_pics/larmatura_lombarda/pages/170b.htm
http://www.thadenarmory.com/authentic_pics/larmatura_lombarda/pages/171a.htm
http://www.thadenarmory.com/authentic_pics/larmatura_lombarda/pages/171b.htm

as providing only the same defensive quality as a gothic cuirass.

I'm also interested in what Jake or Brian has to say on the matter...

I agree, the information you just posted is the same as mine. I guess I read wrongly, earlier it sounded like you were saying some complete armours were the weight of the cuirasses you just listed.
That particular double thick breastplate you posted the pic of I would say isn't the norm. I'd give it a lot more AV. It looks like sort of a breastplate version of a wrapper, a reinforcement for jousting that could be strapped on. Whether it was worn normally or just for jousting who knows? With it on though I'd double the AV. Most antique breastplates I've seen though, whether it's the breastplate/plackart combo or a breastplate articulated, it's just for extra movement, overlapping only enough to give it, like articulated knees or elbows, not doubling the protection for more than it has to. My replica italian cuirass for example, it's the breastplate/plackart combo. It has a lot of overlap because it the strap and buckle suspension, but the actual breastplate still falls pretty shy of a normal one, being cut fairly short. It could still be worn alone but would only cover the ribs.

Do you have any photos of your harness online, Caz? I'd dearly love to see it.

I'll see if I can dig up some of my own...

Durgil wrote: I have to admit that I'm not very knowledgable about plate armour styles. By gothic, are you guys referring to the maximillion style or flutted plate? If you are, then this type was supposed to be thinner and therefore lighter because they used the flutting to increase the strength of the metal plate. I'll have to check my sources, but I have always been under the impression that this was height of full, plate harness creation.

Crusader,
I do have to admit I agree with Caz in respect to the suit you linked for us. It looks like one of the many experiments we see in regards to tilt armour from the era.

I cannot see that suit of harness being very mobile or flexible. While it would provide an increased amount of AV, I would say the CP Penalty would be pretty high.

How would it be any less flexible than a one-piece breastplate?

The armours in the Santa Maria delle Grazie monastery are traditionally held to have been left there following the battle of Marignano in 1515. I don't see any features on that harness that lead me to believe that it is anything other than a field harness.

Crusader wrote: How would it be any less flexible than a one-piece breastplate?

The armours in the Santa Maria delle Grazie monastery are traditionally held to have been left there following the battle of Marignano in 1515. I don't see any features on that harness that lead me to believe that it is anything other than a field harness.

Previous arguements aside, I generally interpret the AV in TROS (and all armor blocks damage games) slightly differently. IMHO, AV integrates both the ability to just plain stop damage and the difficulty of finding a weak point. It is basically an statistical average of sorts. No one with a dagger is going to stab through a breast plate. The damage will come when the attacker stabs into the arm pit or the eye slit etc. Thus for a dagger or cut and thrust sword, the AV really models the difficulty in getting at an armpit, eye slit or what have you.

The AV of 6 for full plate incorporates a number of things. One is the the thickness of the armor. Another is some sort of mail underlayer probably mail gussests on an arming doublet. Another would be the ability of the armor to deflect blows. Regarding the mail, I would not give a breast plate alone an AV of 6 because the person could still be stabbed in the armpits. With full harness, the armpits would be covered by mail.

Higher quality armor gives either reduced CP and Move penalties or higher AV. The reduced CP etc would be from lighter construction from better steel or better articulation etc. Higher AV could come from two sources. One would be thicker metal. Another might be "fine points". For example better protection for the amrpits and elbow joints would give higher AV. The various additional plates and the like that were mean to deflect lance blows away from the head would be another.

I envision the AV6 plate armor in TROS as your basic run of the mill plate from about 1450. It is what the basic knight or man-at-arms might have. Higher nobles would certainly have better armor whether higher AV or lower CP penalty.

NT

I just bought TROS, and it’s a great realistic system, with one major exception in IMO (easily fixed, though). Does anyone have a problem with the way that plate armor versus chain mail is represented? The penalties for a full plate suit are just too steep according to my research (and I’ve been doing a lot of research on this lately, will take time to compile all the resources though). TROS isn’t alone though, many other systems represent Plate poorly as well, even more poorly (d20 and gurps come to mind).

A typical full suit of chain mail (including mail coif) weighed approximately 50 to 60 pounds, about the same weight as a suit of full plate. For chain this includes the hauberk (which weighed anywhere from 20 to 35 pounds, possibly because some were actually two pieces, front and back), the coif – up to ten pounds, the leggings – up to ten pounds, plus all other areas (hands, etc.) and most importantly it included the significant padding/cloth armor worn underneath. This was mostly necessary to reduce impact and piercing blows, AND to prevent infection from the chain mail being embedded in your flesh when you were hit with a strong sword blow.

Full Plate also had this padding/cloth/leather underneath the metal, but needed less of it. Considering these facts and that plate was form fitted to its wearer, I can’t think of any reason a designer would choose to represent a suit of full plate as being more difficult to fight in than chain mail. If anything, since they are about the same weight and plate was evenly distributed (chain hung on the shoulders, but also fastened to the belt –leggings and hauberk – to put some weight on the waist), I would think plate would incur LESS of a penalty. Was the higher CP penalty for full plate implemented in TROS for game balance? It really does not seem realistic, the penalty should be the same as for chain. Plate just cost ridiculously more!

And please don’t say that the shoulder pauldrons were so large they were restrictive. These kinds of shoulder guards did not come into use for plate until the later stages of plate: Gothic and Maximillian. Then, yes, the –3 cp modifier would make sense, but so would an AV of 7 for the shoulder (something like that).

The only time plate was really cumbersome was during the mid-fourteenth century, a transitional period between full chain and full plate suits, when Plate (especially breast plates) were combined with full suits of chain. Then, it makes sense for a total –3 cp to apply.

Also, I think helmets incur to high a penalty. Why a –1 cp for a chain coif? Other than decreased perception (which probably should be a higher penalty for that attribute), did it really restrict combat ability that much? Perhaps the increased perception penalty, plus an increased chance that a mobile opponent could take advantage (a chance to surprise his opponent as per surprise rules in TROS by performing certain maneuvers). All in all, I would only give a –1 CP penalty to those full helmets that had those narrow eyeslits. I will admit, perhaps I am wrong on the helmet.

But in general, it seems that most of the TROS research really focused on weapons research, particularly swordplay. I looked at the list of sources in the back of TROS, which confirms my suspicion further. No significant sources on the details of armor. It really seems like this system is skewed towards unarmored (or lightly armored) combatants. The fact of the matter was that the armor knight was a greatly feared Sherman tank of the MA’s unless you were similarly armored, or you had superior numbers with weapons designed to penetrate plate or exploit its weaknesses (like polearms that hooked plated riders and pulled them off their horses).

Overall, I was significantly disappointed in the treatment of armor in the TROS book, even more so because so FEW kinds of armor are listed! What about the important “coat of plates?” I’m sure other people can list other kinds of armor as well. I would think with all the weapons listed in the book (and the existing rules for them in this book are good enough to cover all the bases, IMO), and the $35 price tag, that more armor types would have been listed. Are more listed in TFOB? Even if so, should have been in the original TROS.

Otherwise, I think the system is great, and a much needed step towards better fantasy combat systems.

Any thoughts?

Thanks,

-Alan

For the record, we agree that the armor penalties are a little harsh, and there will be a large section on armor in TFOB that addresses your concerns as well as showing exactly what parts of the body each type of armor covers, new armor types and materials, etc.

Brian.

Brian,

Thanks for that lighning fast reply, and that sounds great! Any chance that future corrections to listed armors in the original TROS book would be available on a FAQ or PDF on your website?

Thx and happy new year!

-Alan

I'd agree that I would have liked more information on armor. However, it is forcast for the future, and it is easy enough to just lower the CPs for full plate if you like. The armor system is also simple enough to just make your own modifications. I'd give coat of plates an AV of 5 (when over mail) and penalty of -1CP -- a bit cumbersome and not quite as good as a solid breastplate. In fact if you wanted to model armor from the ~1350's you could just call it plate and mail and give it an AV of 5 and say -3 CP (or you could be more detailed).....

You'll have to speak to the bossman for that, I just work here :-)

Brian.