Steve Jackson Games Forums - Trying to solve the weakness of Low-Tech armor with no modifications on ST damage tab

Steve Jackson Games Forums (https://forums.sjgames.com/index.php)

- GURPS (https://forums.sjgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=13)

Re: Trying to solve the weakness of Low-Tech armor with no modifications on ST damage

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rabenrecht (Post 2096804)

As with many complaints leveled against rules in an RPG System, they stem from the complainers chosen framing. Since rules of game System never model reality and are thus always an abstraction, how you model a specific instance of Action with rules, or conversely how you translate a sequence of game System Code into actual Events depends on your perspective, that is how you Frame Things.

When you look at a Piece of rules and go "man, those rules are stupid" it may very well that those rules are not very good. Or, those rules simply appeared to be bad because of your framing.

Let me illustrate: so you see the Video above and be all like "Man, look how the guy in armor just takes the hit of the sword and there isn't even a dent! But in GURPS a hit of a sword can totatly wound someone wearing such armor. The GRUPS rules are stupid!"
But maybe this is because you choose to model the swordstrike the guy in the Video performs as an actual attack dealing like 1d6+2 damage or so.

Instead, I offer a different perspective. The guy in the Video has absolutely no Intention of harming the guy in armor. This is not what is modeled in GURPS with an attack.
If, on the other Hand, an attack with a sword against someone wearing full plate armor manages to deal damage, the attack landed in a place or way for it is possible to deal damage.
This is contrasted by Targeting Chinks were the atttacker actively tries to circumvent the armor.

I'm not saying that the damage/armor model in GURPS cannot be made better. All I'm saying ís that it may be better then you make it out to be.
Just adjust your framing.

I get what your saying as a general point about framing, although I'd say the people in the video know it's not going to get through so aren't actually concerned about puling their blows.

Because really a light, hand held swung cutting edge is just about the worst possible way to try and get through armour

Re: Trying to solve the weakness of Low-Tech armor with no modifications on ST damage

There is another possibility. Treat the armor as you would cover, using Overpenetration rules. Thus:

Armor has its normal DR and HP equal to 8x(cube root of weight). You need to do DR+HP/4 to cause overpenetration.

Using armor in the Basic Set

Heavy Steel Corselet DR 7 Weight 45
28hp 7+7=14 to overpenetrate

Bronze Corselet DR5 Weight 40
28hp 7+5=12 to overpenetrate

Mail Shirt 4/2 16
21hp 5+4/2= 9/7 to overpenetrate

Leather Armor 2 10
18hp 2+4=6 to overpenetrate

Cloth Armor 1 6
15hp 1+3=4 to overpenetrate

It may make bronze armor slightly too good, though? I don't know how effective it actually should be compared to steel.

If we calculate this with Low Tech Instant Armor for the torso:

Wood DR 3 Weight 30
hp 25 3+6=9 to overpenetrate

Heavy Plate DR9 Weight 32
hp 26 9+6=15 to overpenetrate

Heavy Mail DR5* Weight 18
hp 21 5+5=10 to overpenetrate

Heavy Leather DR 3 (-1 vs imp) Weight 20
hp 22 3+5=8 to overpenetrate

Heavy Layered Cloth DR 4 Weight 28
hp 25 4+6=10 to overpenetrate

Padded Cloth DR1* Weight 6
hp 15 1+3=4 to overpenetrate

Straw DR 2 Weight 20
hp 22 2+5=7 to overpenetrate

This models the effectiveness of armor pretty well, I think. Not only are warriors clad in plate armor near-invulnerable, their armor is also pretty resistant to damage. Meanwhile, the users of worse armor like wooden or cloth ones can get some good protection for a while, until damage to their armor renders it completely useless which I think is pretty realistic. Doing things this way will make combats last very long though, as fighters now have to wear down their opponents armor or strike at an unarmored location/through a chink. Which, again, may be pretty realistic. I'd only recommend doing things this way when running gritty, realistic games with detailed combat.

Re: Trying to solve the weakness of Low-Tech armor with no modifications on ST damage

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rasna (Post 2096457)

Doubling DR against all kinds of attacks doesn't work well except for swords and wooden crushing weapons. DR 8/4* Fine Mail is invulnerable or near-invulnerable to longbow and reflex composite bow arrows, picks and axes, which it isn't realistic.

This kind of mail should only be vulnerable to the heaviest bows at the shortest ranges. A ST12-14 bow has no chance.

Quote:

If you manage to bend a 2mm thick good quality breastplate with a broadsword you're a superhero, not a human.

Hallelujah. I've been banging on about this for two decades and finally seem to be making some headway.

Re: Trying to solve the weakness of Low-Tech armor with no modifications on ST damage

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rasna (Post 2096620)

If you manage to bend a 2mm thick good quality breastplate with a broadsword you're a superhero, not a human.

Not sure if it requires you to be superhuman, or if it requires the broadsword to be magical. There's a good chance it requires less force to bend the sword than it requires to bend the breastplate, in which case your strength is sort of moot.

Re: Trying to solve the weakness of Low-Tech armor with no modifications on ST damage

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anthony (Post 2096883)

Isn't this just further evidence in favor of the (.5) AD for cutting?

Re: Trying to solve the weakness of Low-Tech armor with no modifications on ST damage

Quote:

Originally Posted by apoc527 (Post 2096884)

Isn't this just further evidence in favor of the (.5) AD for cutting?

Actually, it's argument for penetration caps. If your weapon is weaker than the armor its striking, applying more strength just means your weapon bends or breaks. This is generally moot for compact metal striking heads (including axes), as they tend to be stronger than any plausible armor could be, but relatively long thin objects (swords, rods), soft objects (such as wood), or brittle objects (such as stone) might simply fail.

Re: Trying to solve the weakness of Low-Tech armor with no modifications on ST damage

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anthony (Post 2096887)

Weirdly this was part of my thinking regrading the AoA(S) tweak I posted up, you don't get more penetration but if you do penetrate you get more damage.

I know the basic GURPS premise is that energy drives and links penetration and injury (adjusted for AD and Injury mod respectively), and in general it works*. But I do think when it comes to hand held weapons where their effects in each are so different** it is worth further splitting them in effect.

(of course there are various ways to do this in the system without needing to create new tweaks)

*and to be fair when your creating a system that has to cover as much stuff GURPS is designed to do it makes sense to have core concepts and unified rules where you can.

**and different types of melee weapons also have very different ways of doing both as well.

Re: Trying to solve the weakness of Low-Tech armor with no modifications on ST damage

I've to thank you guys for your opinions and advices.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RyanW (Post 2096647)

You seem to be operating under the assumption that fantasy equals over-the-top wackiness. I tend to disagree, but that's not relevant to the discussion at hand.

Not necessarily, but usually fantasy RPGs put less emphasis on realism than historical or semi-historical RPGs. Usually I run "Mount-and-Blade"-style campaigns (no magics, humans only, but different world with different people, history, religions and cultures).

Quote:

Originally Posted by RyanW (Post 2096647)

My ST table, I think, pretty well fixes your concerns. ST 10 swing damage is 1d-1. That is pretty much incapable of cutting through any metallic armor with a broadsword using the Low Tech blunt trauma rule (you can just barely penetrate the lightest metal armors by putting all your force behind it for an All-Out Attack), and can't even hurt someone in medium or heavy plate. I imagine it isn't perfect, but it solves other problems too (notably ST contests) and is very low overhead.

It seems to be a fine work, but IMHO it has a little problem: too low damage against unarmored targets. My goal is to maintain the weapon damage against unarmored people but at the same time increase the effectiveness of armor.

Quote:

Originally Posted by phayman53 (Post 2096691)

Have you looked at my thread here? I am curious what you think because you and I are attempting to do the exact same thing (I think), fix the armor penetration problem with muscle powered weapons without changing the ST table. We also come to some very similar conclusions (though not the same always) about how much things should penetrate armor. However, I think my AD's are a little simpler without losing too much accuracy.

In general it seems to me that my AD's penalize most weapons a little more, but I also have an expanded system of blunt trauma through armor that, perhaps, evens this out a bit.

I hadn't seen your work before to create my own HRs, but yes, they're very similar. I have put more emphasis on material composition of both armor and weapon because the interaction between different materials changes the results. At the same force of striking and with the same weapon, hard and soft (or brittle) materials perform differently against both hard and soft or brittle surfaces.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanHoward (Post 2096874)

This kind of mail should only be vulnerable to the heaviest bows at the shortest ranges. A ST12-14 bow has no chance.

If I'm not wrong, according to Alan Williams' experiments and depending which kind of arrows are used, Mary Rose longbows were capable to pierce mail at close range, but a mail hauberk with a well-padded jack is proofed against longbows.

With my house rules, most impaling attacks have (0.66) against metal armor and (1) against non-metallic armor. A 128 lbs x 78" longbow with 30" draw (yep, the same of the Deadly Spring article, Pyramids 3-33#) has a realistic damage of 1d+1 imp.
According to my HR, its damage is 1d+1 (0.66˟)/(1°) imp for barbed arrowheads, 1d+1 (0.5˟)/(1.5°) imp for broadhead arrowheads and 1d+1 (0.66˟)/(1°) pi+ for bodkin arrowheads. Hardened steel barbed arrowheads will perform better (1d+1 (0.66˟˟)/(1˟)/(1.5°) imp) - in fact, in 1405 king Henry V of England made a law against those who craft too soft metal arrowheads, because they perform badly against armor.

With my HRs:
Fine Mail shirt has DR 4* (DR 2* vs. crushing). Being metallic armor, it has an effective DR of 4 [DR/(1)] against bodkin arrows and hardened steel barbed arrows (unless mail is made of hardened steel, which increases the DR of 1 and decreases the armor divisor of hardened steel barbed arrowheads to (0.66), resulting in an effective DR 7), DR 6 [DR/(0.66)] against barbed arrows and DR 8 [DR/(0.5)] against broadhead arrows (and that's why they're used most for hunting and rarely on battlefield).

Using longbow with bodkin arrows or hardened steel arrows against fine mail:
1d+1 pi+ (bodkin) or 1d+1 imp (barbed) - DR 4 = 0, 0, 0, 1, 2, 3 damage, with x1.5 (bodkins) or x2 (barbed) wound modifier if torso, neck or head are hit. Armour isn't proofed against such arrows, but anyway it gives good protection and it's likely to avoid to be killed or incapacitated by a single arrow that penetrates DR.

Using longbow with barbed arrows against fine mail:
1d+1 imp - DR 6 = 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1 damage, with x2 wound modifier if torso, neck or head are hit. Armour is nearly proofed against these arrows; the only chance for the archer is a dramatic armour fail on a critical hit (which sometimes - but very rarely - happened).

Using longbow with broadhead arrows against fine mail:
1d+1 imp - DR 8 = 0. There is no way to pierce a coat of mail with such arrows.

Re: Trying to solve the weakness of Low-Tech armor with no modifications on ST damage

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rasna (Post 2097014)

Williams tested two samples. An extant 15th century voider and a copy of this kind of mail made by Erik Schmidt. Both would be classed as Light Mail in Low-Tech. The model for Fine Mail was based on examples with a much denser mesh. The MET has a video showing that you can't even push a pin through one of their pieces.

Re: Trying to solve the weakness of Low-Tech armor with no modifications on ST damage

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanHoward (Post 2097094)

I suspected that the sample tested by Williams wasn't very strong, and in fact I was unsure if it may figure as GURPS light mail or fine mail. If I'm not wrong, the arrow required 80 J to pierce the light mail and other 20 J to pierce the padding underneath. A longbow arrow, depending its weight and the draw weight, has up to 140-150 Joules of energy at close distance: enough to pierce light mail, gambeson and inflict a serious wound to the wearer. I don't figure exactly how "GURPS-like fine mail" would perform against the same bow/arrow used in the test: superficial penetration and/or some blunt trauma, or no damage at all for both armour and wearer?