Armor Bonuses vs. Weapon Type

[Demivrgvs]

As described in the manual armors provide additional protection against specific weapon type, in the form of +/- Armor Class bonuses. They are as follow (checked with NI):

- Leather has a -2 penalty vs. piercing

- Studded Leather has +2 bonus vs. slashing and +1 bonus vs. piercing

- Chain Mail has +2 bonus vs. slashing and -2 penalty vs. crushing

- Splint Mail has +1 bonus vs. piercing and +2 bonus vs. crushing

- Plate has +3 bonus vs. slashing

- Full Plate has +4 bonus vs. slashing and +3 bonus vs. piercing

Conclusion:

- Crushing is the best one by far (only Splint Mail is slightly more effective against it)

- Piercing is in the middle but much more effective than slashing

- Slashing is the worst one (pratically the worst against any armor)

 

Is there a reason behind these values? They seems quite casual to me, and the only effect they have is to make crushing weapons much more effective (even damage reduction usually encourage using them!).

Maybe we can tweak it to a better pattern which can make more fun choosing the right weapon against determinated armors. Just my 2 cent.

[Kulyok]

I saw them recently in NI, too, as I was making items for Angelo. Most of them make sense to me: a dagger will pierce the leather better than a large sword, but if you repeatedly slash someone in full plate with a sword OR a dagger, his armor will protect him. And hammer is the best, because only the hardiest armor(why isn't there a bonus vs full plates, by the way?) will withstand it.

[Demivrgvs]

Ive done a little search on Wikipedia and other sites.

 

Leather Armor: it already makes sense.

 

Chain Mail: "This construction can ward off a slashing blow by an edged weapon, preventing it from cutting through to the skin. The flexibility of mail meant that a particularly strong blow would often transfer to the user, often causing fractures or serious bruising." It seems its bonuses are perfectly matching.

 

Full Plate: "In the early years of pistol and muskets, firearms were relatively low in velocity. The full suits of armour, or breast plates actually stopped bullets fired from a modest distance. The front breast plates were, in fact, commonly shot as a test." I think plate mail and full plates should slighlty better protect from piercing rather than slashing.

 

But if crushing weapons are so much better why on earth swords have been the most used weapon in medieval warfare? I think crafting a fine sword should be harder than crafting a simple mace or hammer.

[Miloch]

These are PnP values and also in the game manuals. I dunno if they're supposed to make sense.

 

Plate armour was a relatively late invention in medieval times. And I suppose the point (no pun intended) was to find a way through a chink in the armour, not actually pierce the armour itself. Thus, sometimes knights would aim their lances for the helm visors if they really wanted to kill their opponents, as opposed to the shield if they just wanted to unhorse them.

 

I don't think a mace is going to be that much more effective against someone in full plate. That's just silly.

[Guest Guest]

The bonus values mostly make sense. Metal armour protects very well against slashing attacks, piercing attacks concentrate teh force into a small area and have a better chance of breaking through, and blunt weapons simply transfer the force to the target, there is still a forceful impact that can't be completely avoided.

 

Plate isn't that thick (or it would be too clumsy to use in combat), so bashing it definitely works. It is pretty good at deflecting piercing attacks because there are few flat surfaces that can really "take a hit", so many attacks will slide off, but anything is better than trying to cut it. It was common to grab one's sword by the blade with the off hand to improve accuracy for thrusting attacks against plate-wearing enemies ("half-swording").

 

As a side note, a real war hammer isn't like what you'd see in D&D - it has a very small point of cotact, so it's actually pretty close to being a piercing weapon already (most of them also have a spike on one side). It's made to concentrate the force of a blow to a tiny area in order to punch through armour.

 

 

 

But if crushing weapons are so much better why on earth swords have been the most used weapon in medieval warfare? I think crafting a fine sword should be harder than crafting a simple mace or hammer.

 

That's actually the whole reason right there. Swords are general symbols of power. It's a "noble" weapon, unlike a "simple" and "unrefined" bludgeoning instrument. Someone who owns a sword obviously has the money to pay someone skilled to make it for them.

 

"My blade is longer than yours". Interpret that any way you like.

 

Actually, people often did carry around maces and hammers as a backup. But remember that most soldiers wouldn't wear plate, it's rare and expensive. Most will wear leather or maybe chain, so a sword will still work well against most of them.

[CamDawg]

As a side note, a real war hammer isn't like what you'd see in D&D - it has a very small point of cotact, so it's actually pretty close to being a piercing weapon already (most of them also have a spike on one side). It's made to concentrate the force of a blow to a tiny area in order to punch through armour.

You beat me to it. Piercing weapons such as these hammers were developed to counter plate mail. Keep in mind that the weapons and armor evolved together--as a new type of armor became effective against current weapons, the weapons would evolve to counter the armor, and so on and so forth. The History Channel used to have an excellent series on the evolution of European medieval arms and armor, but it seems to have gone by the wayside in favor of yet more WWII documentaries.

[Nythrun]

But if crushing weapons are so much better why on earth swords have been the most used weapon in medieval warfare?

 

They weren't; that distinction belongs to the spear.

[WizWom]

A sword was an emblem of Knighthood; the vast majority of medieval men-at-arms used pole-arms. The barbarian warhosts, like the Saxons, or the Vikings, used war-axes; quite similar to the revolutionary era Tomahawks.

 

A Knight trained for years in using a sword - it really isn't as simple as "swing it and do damage" - which is why, of course, there are non-proficiency penalties.

 

The only protection most mail provided against a blunt blow was to spread the blow - which chainmail did very poorly, but plate mail did very well. But that's why Plate Mail is AC3 vs. Blunt (and Full plate is AC1), while Chain mail is an effective AC7.

 

The whole "Splint Mail" and "Banded Mail" discussion has been going on since at least 1978, when AD&D came out. The nearest I can figure is there really were some banded mail breastworks, and splint style skirts, but not really anything like Gygax described. So, since it's completely from his mind, he can determine what it does any way that makes some sort of physical sense. Splint is nominally AC5; so, saying it is +2 to crushing says that it spreads a blow as well as plate mail.

[Rabain]

I assume the popularity of the sword is also something to do with speed and ease of use.

 

Carrying and drawing a sword is infinitely easier than carrying an axe, hammer or mace.

 

Also the force in the swing of an axe, hammer, mace is much harder to reverse once you've committed to it than a sword. Axes, hammers and mace are less defensive too.