Helms, Greaves and Gauntlets...

[Gudiomen]

Originally Posted by Ze'Manel Cunha

BTW in the armor listing you have a common Portuguese to English typo, it's Brigandine with a d for the armor (Brigantina).

Brigantine with a t is for the ship (Bergantim).

You're quite right, my list's in portuguese for my players, and I mixed it up when turning them back into english.

Anyone have weight references for helmets besides the few examples given by Verjigorm?

[Gudiomen]

I'm decently satisfied with hand and feet armor as it is, completely in the dark about the helms (only Verjigorm got us some weights, and his source is about reconstruction not actual historical museum examples, wich makes me a bit skeptical).

Other than that, I've noticed a few things, balance-wise that it'd like your input.

Originally Posted by Gudiomen

Torso, Legs and Arm:
Cloth Armor, DR 1, 7 lbs, $100
Hardened Leather, DR 2, 16 lbs, $200
Reinforced Leather, DR 3, 20 lbs, $250
Light Mail, DR 3/2, 18 lbs, $1.750
Medium Mail, DR 4/2, 30 lbs, $1.100
Heavy Mail, DR 4/2 45 lbs, $550
Medium Double-Mail, DR 5/3 45 lbs, $2.200
Heavy Double-Mail, DR 5/3 90 lbs, $1.100
Bronze Armor, DR 4, 40 lbs, $1.750
Light Scale, DR 3, 27 lbs, $625
Scale, DR 4, 40 lbs, $750
Scale-Mail, DR 5, 40 lbs, $7.500
Light Lamellar, DR 4, 24 lbs, $1.350
Medium Lamellar, DR 5, 36 lbs, $2.000
Heavy Lamellar, DR 6, 48 lbs, $2.700
Jack, DR 3, 17 lbs, $375
Brigandine, DR 4, 35 lbs, $1.250
Half-Plate, DR 5, 40 lbs, $2.000
Light Plate, DR 6, 35 lbs, 4.000
Heavy Plate, DR 7, 55 lbs, $6.000

1) why would anyone use Light Scale, if Reinforced Leather offers the same protection, is lighter and cheaper? How do I fix this without making other armors redundant?
2) why would anyone even us Reinforced Leather, if Jack is lighter, offers the same DR and is only slightly more expensive?
3) can you spot anyo other such situations where an armor makes another pointless? (in most cases it's an issue of choice... either better DR or reduced cost, and so on...)

[Sam Baughn]

What are 'jack' and 'reinforced leather'?

If 'reinforced leather' is heavy leather with bits of metal attached to it (like ring armour), then I'd say it's pretty much the same thing as 'light scale' and should have similar stats. Although individual historical pieces may vary somewhat in weight, construction and protection levels, for game purposes they should all fall under the same general 'type', since we can't distinguish between DR 2-and-a-bit and DR 3 in GURPS.

[Lupo]

Originally Posted by Gudiomen

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just skeptical. Other sites I've found have thick-rubber soles and whatnot. There are design variations, argentinian gaucho boots for instance have much cruder leather and somewhat thinner, also almost no sole at all (I might not give it DR 2 though).

One should test a large number of boots to be sure, but IMO 4 lbs is a MINIMUM for boots.

I have in front of me a pair of "cowboy-like" boots, not very thick, not very tall, not a large size. They definitely would get only DR 1 for the lower leg and probably for the feet too, as they aren't in any way rigid, reinforced or anything.
I weighed (does that word exist?) one of them on a kitchen scale and it weighs 820 grams (or about 1,8 pounds for you non-decimal people).

So a pair of ordinary boots should weigh at least 3,5 lbs, rounded to 4 lbs for simplicity's sake, and a pair of reinforced boots should be in the 5-6 lbs range.

Not to mention actually metal-reinforced shoes, as the ones used by construction workers... those grant DR 3 or more to the feet but are *far* heavier than boots.

[Gudiomen]

Originally Posted by Perfect Organism

What are 'jack' and 'reinforced leather'?

If 'reinforced leather' is heavy leather with bits of metal attached to it (like ring armour), then I'd say it's pretty much the same thing as 'light scale' and should have similar stats. Although individual historical pieces may vary somewhat in weight, construction and protection levels, for game purposes they should all fall under the same general 'type', since we can't distinguish between DR 2-and-a-bit and DR 3 in GURPS.

To me "reinforced leather" is a basically leather armor with bits of metal, rings, etc... while "light scale" is light leather fully covered by light metal scales... and "jack" is a piece of cloething with bits of horn, light metal, etc. woven into the fabric, like brigandine but with lighter, less protective reinforcement.
What I'm tempted to do is this...
decrease DR of Jack by one (DR 2), decrease weight to be compatible with "reinforced cloth", it'd be more expensive than hard leather, but lighter and disguised as regular clothing.
Increase Light Scale, Scale and Scale-Mail by 1 (DR 4, 5 and 6 respectively)... since I view these items as more metal-rich than the others, it stands to reason they'd be more protective. I have no problem with Scale-Mail (scale built directly over mail links) being DR 6, as it's incredibly rare, expensive and still not as good as light plate (wich is lighter and cheaper). It'll also bring scale's DR closer to lamellar, wich makes sense since they're nearly the same thing.
I have to re-evaluate the impact his will have on mail though, but my mail needs to be revised anyway...

[Verjigorm]

Originally Posted by Gudiomen

I'm decently satisfied with hand and feet armor as it is, completely in the dark about the helms (only Verjigorm got us some weights, and his source is about reconstruction not actual historical museum examples, wich makes me a bit skeptical).

Actually, the weights are from real historic pieces. The book itself is bout modern reproduction, but the weights are from real amor(12th century norman, 14th century and two 15th century) to give the prospective armour some idea of what they are trying to replicate.

Generally, modern reproductions are a bit heavier, because few obby armourers have the skills or facilities to work with high carbon steel. So where a 15th century breastplate may be 18-20 guage, a moden replica is often 16-18 guage, du to the difference in metal. And sicne alot of the hobby armourers are doing this fo behourd groups like the SCA, they make teir stuff a bit heavier and sturdier, to survive repeated bashing by blunt objects. After-all, few people have th resources to spend thousands of dollars on armour repair over the course of a year. They are after-all people playing at being Knights, not Knights themselves, so they don't have all the wealth that normally goes along with this stuff.

The Armour Forum had a pot where an SCA king bashed a fella's spring-steel espaulders, and actually fractured several of the lames. The guy wasn't really hurt, but it jsut goes to show tha even quality armor can be defeated.

The general method of defeating plate mail seemed to be to thrust at the weakpoints. Of course, your canny armourer knew this, and designed the armor fr alot of overlap at the joints. Which lead to the use of alot of blunt weaponry, intended to bash on the armor until it causes degradation. Sraps break, plates bend(or snap!) and joints are opened up, at which point you can begin to thrust into the armour easier.

Keep in mind, that while harder armor is more difficult to defeat, it is more brittle and less forgiving of stress. Much like the trauma plates of modern armor, repeated impacts will weaken the armor. I suspect this is why many nobles kept staffs of armourers, to repair their armour after it was damaged. Roleplaying games typical ignore this(though the Diablo series did model it a bit!), and players often think of armor as a one time expenditure, rather than somethign which requires ongoing maintaince.

[ArmoredSaint]

Originally Posted by Verjigorm

...where a 15th century breastplate may be 18-20 guage, a moden replica is often 16-18 guage, du to the difference in metal.

This is an oversimplification. See the site I posted earlier with thicknesses given from actual measurements of historical pieces. Breastplates in particular are often thicker than 16-18ga, especially in the center. What you say is generally true about SCA helms and limb armour versus the real thing, but breastplates are one piece that is an exception; if anything, SCA armourers tend to make breastplates too light.

Originally Posted by Verjigorm

The Armour Forum had a pot where an SCA king bashed a fella's spring-steel espaulders, and actually fractured several of the lames. The guy wasn't really hurt, but it jsut goes to show tha even quality armor can be defeated.

I have always contended that SCA rattan clubs simulate impact weapons like maces better than swords. A real sword tapers distally, and most of the mass is concentrated near the hilt. An SCA rattan sticksword has more-or-less constant mass throughout the length of its striking surface. SCA rattan clubs are harder on armour than a real sword would be. A real sword, though it might bite into the metal of the armour a little, will not dent or fracture a piece of plate the way an SCA rattan stick will.

[Verjigorm]

[QUOTE=ArmoredSaint]This is an oversimplification. See the site I posted earlier with thicknesses given from actual measurements of historical pieces. Breastplates in particular are often thicker than 16-18ga, especially in the center. What you say is generally true about SCA helms and limb armour versus the real thing, but breastplates are one piece that is an exception; if anything, SCA armourers tend to make breastplates too light.[quote]

I can believe this. Josh(ArmoredSaint) owns a suit of plate, and I do not. As TOMAR(the book I reference) suggests that modern reproductions(often made of low grade steel) are denser. I can believe that SCA torso armour is not quite up to par. I box on a regular basis, and I have also performed unarmoured combat with blunt wooden sticks(not rattan). I have broken alot of wood, but no plate, as of yet.

I have also performed test cutting with low quality replicas, as well as one sword which I would consider a decent weapon*. I have found that swords unsharpened, can still cut through a wooden log, roughly 4-5" in diameter. I have taken a stainless steel rod and racked it against the same wooden log.

I have always contended that SCA rattan clubs simulate impact weapons like maces better than swords. A real sword tapers distally, and most of the mass is concentrated near the hilt. An SCA rattan sticksword has more-or-less constant mass throughout the length of its striking surface. SCA rattan clubs are harder on armour than a real sword would be. A real sword, though it might bite into the metal of the armour a little, will not dent or fracture a piece of plate the way an SCA rattan stick will.

I find myself in agreement. This is also why SCA armourers build their armor heavier than normal. It has to deal with alot of blunt trauma, that real, historic armour does not deal with.

*The sword in question has been informarly tested by myself. I took the sword and drove it into the ground(probably a foot into the turf), and then I bent it until the pommel touched the ground. I then let it go, and the sword sprung back, and wavered several times, but it did not remain bent.

I personally suggest this test for any sword one purchases. Embed it into the ground, and then bend the pommel to the ground. Touch the ground with the pommel. Let the sword go. If it doesn't spring back and return to true, then you have purchased a bad sword.

Another thing to test is the tang. My Zwiehandier doesn't spring back(It's soft steel, not stainless), but it's tang runs the length of it's handle.

I look forward to the day that osh and I meet, because I think i will learn a great deal.

[talonthehand]

Originally Posted by Verjigorm

I find myself in agreement. This is also why SCA armourers build their armor heavier than normal. It has to deal with alot of blunt trauma, that real, historic armour does not deal with.

*The sword in question has been informarly tested by myself. I took the sword and drove it into the ground(probably a foot into the turf), and then I bent it until the pommel touched the ground. I then let it go, and the sword sprung back, and wavered several times, but it did not remain bent.

I personally suggest this test for any sword one purchases. Embed it into the ground, and then bend the pommel to the ground. Touch the ground with the pommel. Let the sword go. If it doesn't spring back and return to true, then you have purchased a bad sword.

Another thing to test is the tang. My Zwiehandier doesn't spring back(It's soft steel, not stainless), but it's tang runs the length of it's handle.

I look forward to the day that osh and I meet, because I think i will learn a great deal.

Armored Saint is a pretty good guy (and one of my local GM's). The trick when talking to him about a subject he's knowledgeable on is to keep him from drifting topic to topic. He has ADD like you wouldn't imagine.

[Gudiomen]

Ok, I've decreased DR and weight of jack, it's now effectively "reinforced cloth", it's lighter and as protective as leather, but more expensive and will be a pain to repair.
Brigandine is now "stealth" scale, with 1 point less DR and a little lighter, but more expensive as well.
I've increased DR for scale, it now has the same progression and similar weights than lamellar, wich makes sense.
I simplified mail, I now have "Light mail", "mail" (wich corresponds to medium gauge mail, wich is more protective, heavier and cheapper since it doesn't require advanced techniques for fine mesh) and finally "double-mail" (wich will be double-gauge mail instead of double-link mesh, so I can justify the cheap cost - it's easy to make - increased protection and weight).
To me honest I could have a mail table the size of my entire armor list, there's plenty of options and varieties. Same goes for scale and lamellar, but I already have more options than RAW and my players won't apreciate the distinction between reinforeced mail, medial ribbed scales, etc...

I'd like someone to give it another look (I've updated the original table) and give me their evaluation. Specially the armor connoisseurs.