[LT] Two Armor questions

[Pomphis]

1): In Basic mail armor gets higher DR at higher TLs. I cannot find such a rule in LT. Therefore I assume that LT mail does not get higher DR at higher TLs ?

2) Blunt trauma applies for full 5 points of crushing damage stopped by armor. So armor with DR up to 4 is never affected by it ?

[DanHoward]

1. Mail remains virtually unchanged from when the celts invented it right through its entire history of use on the battlefield. You can make it out of hardened steel at TL4 and more modern alloys at TL 6+.

2. Yep. That's why there have been many threads discussing alternative rules for blunt trauma for low-tech armour. Low-Tech settled on a split DR with more flexible armour such as mail and scale having reduced DR vs crushing damage. A good mechanic should incorporate the edge protection rule, blunt trauma, and crushing damage all in one concise and consistent set of rules.

[Pomphis]

Thank you.

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by DanHoward

1. Mail remains virtually unchanged from when the celts invented it right through its entire history of use on the battlefield. You can make it out of hardened steel at TL4 and more modern alloys at TL 6+.

2. Yep. That's why there have been many threads discussing alternative rules for blunt trauma for low-tech armour. Low-Tech settled on a split DR with more flexible armour such as mail and scale having reduced DR vs crushing damage. A good mechanic should incorporate the edge protection rule, blunt trauma, and crushing damage all in one concise and consistent set of rules.

I'm pretty sure this will be my next project, once I'm done with the current one on bows.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Pomphis

1): In Basic mail armor gets higher DR at higher TLs. I cannot find such a rule in LT. Therefore I assume that LT mail does not get higher DR at higher TLs ?

Basic doesn't either; the TL adjustment applies to a different table.

[Ultraviolet]

Originally Posted by DanHoward

1. Mail remains virtually unchanged from when the celts invented it right through its entire history of use on the battlefield. You can make it out of hardened steel at TL4 and more modern alloys at TL 6+.

2. Yep. That's why there have been many threads discussing alternative rules for blunt trauma for low-tech armour. Low-Tech settled on a split DR with more flexible armour such as mail and scale having reduced DR vs crushing damage. A good mechanic should incorporate the edge protection rule, blunt trauma, and crushing damage all in one concise and consistent set of rules.

I like the edge protection rules, and we use them in our Song of Ice and Fire campaign. But is it balanced to have only Cutting weapons work this way, while retaining the normal mechanics for Imp?
I know that the odds of penetration are greater when the force is applies on a small area compared to a large area - that goes for a lot of engineering work as well.
Also, testing shows that arrows and spears almost never penetrate if you use the same mechanics as edge protection, because thrust damage is always lower than swing.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Ultraviolet

I like the edge protection rules, and we use them in our Song of Ice and Fire campaign. But is it balanced to have only Cutting weapons work this way, while retaining the normal mechanics for Imp?

Balanced how?

This rule intentionally makes it more effective to use high damage impaling attacks vs. armour and less effective to use slashing attacks. This is meant to reflect reality and fix the blooper that when facing a heavily armoured foe, the best tactic according to the Basic Set was to hack at him with a sword. Anyone who attempted to use historically accurate methods like grappling, attacking gaps with a thrust knife or knocking the enemy prone to stab downwards with a tuck was simply wasting effort when he could more easily chop at the armoured foe.

[Ultraviolet]

Originally Posted by Icelander

Balanced how?

This rule intentionally makes it more effective to use high damage impaling attacks vs. armour and less effective to use slashing attacks. This is meant to reflect reality and fix the blooper that when facing a heavily armoured foe, the best tactic according to the Basic Set was to hack at him with a sword. Anyone who attempted to use historically accurate methods like grappling, attacking gaps with a thrust knife or knocking the enemy prone to stab downwards with a tuck was simply wasting effort when he could more easily chop at the armoured foe.

That was precisely what I asked. It seems it *is* balanced to have Imp work as per normal mechanics. We just initially viewed the whole 'Edge protection' as to also encompass Imp. And in this way the best (well, only) way to beat heavy armour was to use Cr weapons with high initial damage.
Historically fighters used rondel daggers and estocs and great- or longswords in a half-sword grip to thrust through armour, prefarably at weak areas or chinks.
The wild card are those wing/imp weapons. Sure, they are rare and they have the disadvantage of the risk of getting stuck. But will Munchkin gamers switch solely to those?

[Qcumber]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

I'm pretty sure this will be my next project, once I'm done with the current one on bows.

Here are a few ideas I had on the subject of incorporating blunt trauma and edge protection. There are flaws but I have done a little play-testing and I think the concept could be developed.

http://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?t=75990

[Ze'Manel Cunha]

Originally Posted by Ultraviolet

The wild card are those wing/imp weapons. Sure, they are rare and they have the disadvantage of the risk of getting stuck. But will Munchkin gamers switch solely to those?

Warhammers, picks and maces were the primary weapons used for centuries to defeat armor, it's not about Munchkin gamers choosing to use a warhammer or a mace, it's about the warhammer and the mace being the weapon they should have realistically been using to begin with.