[LT] Jousting Mail

[Anders]

Seems like a swell concept. Would you allow a perk to be so accustomed to it that you don't suffer the -1 DX penalty?

[JP42]

I would argue that that is worth more than just a perk - it is effectively "+1 DX, -0.25 BS, only when in Jousting Mail" after all.

I'm not sure if training or familiarity would be sufficient to compensate for rigid armor that slows and restricts movement anyway, at least not in a realistic game. If it were a fantasy game, then an enchantment or special dwarven or elven style of manufacture might be a better course of action, to allow for the same protection without the rigidity.

[Icelander]

I would not, no. That's a penalty for the armour, of necessity, lacking the flexibility of field armour. It's enough to substantially affect freedom of movement and I'd feel it was unrealistic for anyone, regardless of training, to be able to do every single thing he could unarmoured without penalties.

Jousting armour that allowed full range of motion would be much more expensive for the same level of protection and at some point, you'd reach a point where you had to sacrifice some protection for the freedom of movement, even with nearly unlimited resources to play with. The armour is, after all, not merely meant to protect you from penetrating injury over key locations, it's meant to render you safe from absorbing an awful lot of momentum, too.

The best jousting armour is plate, of course, and despite having the technology to build fully articulated field plate at the time of the end of jousting, most suits meant for the lists did not allow a full range of motion. Indeed, limited (or no) articulation of certain areas served to help the jouster secure his lance and also protected him better.

If your arm moved freely within jousting armour, for example, you would greatly increase the chances of it breaking when hit. Instead of the armour supporting the joint when that part of the body is thrown backward, it would allow free motion. Not to mention the spine, which must take a fearful punishment when someone strapped into a supportive saddle is pushed backward with great force. Best if some of the force is absorbed by the armour, which ought to make it harder to bend the body backward at the waist like a rag doll. Same applies to the helm. Allowing easy motion of the head in any direction without hindrance would be a good way to greatly increase broken necks and lethal head injuries.

While the jousting mail doesn't have rigid joints in certain places and limited articulation in others, it must achieve a similar effect by layering the thick mail coat over a whole lot of padding. Padding that would make moving the limbs away from the desired jousting position or bending over at the waist or performing any of the other tasks necessary to fight on foot without a penalty, somewhat problematic.

I'll grant that I wouldn't mind seeing a Pyramid article where various aspects of armour layering were expanded upon. It could also touch on specialised sporting gear that is either designed not to allow full range of motion or effectively interferes with it because of thickness of coat and padding. I've always felt that some forms of layered armour ought to cause far less trouble than other, less reasonable options (mostly ones that never existed historically).

If a game features a lot of tourneys, and therefore specialised tourney gear, there might be room for distinguishing between several kinds of armour designed for different events or sporting rules. So that is merely uncomfortable and heavy, but allows free movement, and other armour that is deliberately designed to restrict movement other than that specifically required (and allowed) in the desired sport.

Saying that it gives a penalty to DX except for the purposes of the given sport might work well as a simplification, but it should actually penalise certain actions much more heavily than others. Tumbling is not only at -1 in real jousting armour, a lot of tumbling movements simply cannot be performed and others are at much more than -1.

By contrast, activities, even if DX-based, which in no way rely on those parts of the body which suffer a restricted range of motion from the armour in question, probably ought not be penalised at all. A character wearing jousting armour, but no gauntlets, might be able to use Sleight of Hand without a specific penalty.

A more detailed system where the activities which were affected by each type of armour was related to the specific ways in which it restricted motion would even allow for distinguishing between armour which might allow unrestricted use of weapons while mounted, but gave penalties while fighting on foot.

Not to mention introducing Perks or Techniques which night allow one to buy off certain penalties and/or reduce others, but have no effect on penalties which are a direct consequence of physical limitations of the armour.

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by Icelander

If your arm moved freely within jousting armour, for example, you would greatly increase the chances of it breaking when hit. Instead of the armour supporting the joint when that part of the body is thrown backward, it would allow free motion. Not to mention the spine, which must take a fearful punishment when someone strapped into a supportive saddle is pushed backward with great force. Best if some of the force is absorbed by the armour, which ought to make it harder to bend the body backward at the waist like a rag doll. Same applies to the helm. Allowing easy motion of the head in any direction without hindrance would be a good way to greatly increase broken necks and lethal head injuries.

I saw a documentary on a forensic archaeological analysis of a Norman knight's skeleton relatively recently (I should go re-watch it, it was good). Back and neck injuries and of course concussions were listed as frequent injuries by the jousters they interviewed, but another common injury was a partial lower-leg crush caused by your horse falling and you getting caught under it.

Which is another place where rigid armour would be very superior even to stiffened mail - it's not only the initial "blow" of the horse landing on your leg, but the continuing pressure.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Bruno

Which is another place where rigid armour would be very superior even to stiffened mail - it's not only the initial "blow" of the horse landing on your leg, but the continuing pressure.

Though depending on the nature of the crush and the knee articulation on the plate, the rigid armor might not actually do appreciably better.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Though depending on the nature of the crush and the knee articulation on the plate, the rigid armor might not actually do appreciably better.

Perhaps not. I do think, however, that the larger point concerned the need for jousting armour in particular to be thick, solid and bulky, and not just resistant to penetration.*

Where normal padding would be just enough to prevent the armour from chafing and getting it to fit right, jousting armour relied on having as much padding as possible while still being able to joust.

So even if there's no deliberate lack of articulation, most jousting armour is effectively always going to be Layered Armour, in that the padding is probably nearly always thick enough to count as armour independently.

*Which doesn't have to mean more armour in all cases, because materials and craftsmanship can make even a relatively light and comfortable harness impractical to penetrate with muscle-powered weapons except in special circumstances.

[Polydamas]

Originally Posted by Asta Kask

Seems like a swell concept. Would you allow a perk to be so accustomed to it that you don't suffer the -1 DX penalty?

All we know for certain is that there was some mail considered especially suitable for jousting (probably because it was heavier but stronger than mail worn on campaign?) so your guess is as good as mine. I don't know what I would do if I were running a game with Jousting Mail.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Polydamas

All we know for certain is that there was some mail considered especially suitable for jousting .

Yep, and knowing no more than that I probably wouldn't even allow "Jousting mail" much less a Perk to buiy off its' penalties.

Whatever the OP thinks it's neat for there's probably a better known armor that does the same thing with fewer issues.

[DanHoward]

I wouldn't allow the penalty to be bought off. When I did the stats I assumed that it was the same as jousting plate that was designed to hold you "rigid" in the saddle to make it easier to use a lance. Anything that removes the DX penalty also removes any benefit it gives for jousting and gives it the same susceptibility to crushing as regular mail. The DX penalty was supposed to be severe enough to stop munchkins from using it in regular battle.