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

I know, this topic has already been discussed several times. This is just my way in order to reach the maximum of realism without changing the DR of armor, the ST damage table and the damage bonus of most low-tech weapons. It isn't a "quick and dirty" solution, so it isn't adequate for those who don't like doing much extra math.

The solution isn't nothing new: armor divisors!
The main innovation is the extensive use of different armor divisors based on the type of damage, the form of the weapon and the material of both weapons and armors.

Armor is divided in three main categories: non-metallic armor (bone, cloth, horn, leather, straw, wood), metallic armor (bronze, copper, iron, steel, stone, TL 1-4 reinforced cloth/leather) and hardened steel armor (the latter is distinguished from metallic armor only for impaling and piercing weapons made of hardened steel, which they're more effective against ordinary metal armor but not very much against hardened steel armor).

Weapons behave differently because their form, their material, their balancing and the material of the armor they try to defeat, so a lot of them have a split armor divisor, one against metallic armor and one against non metallic armor. -
- Unbalanced crushing weapons made of metal (maces, pollaxes, flails) and piercing weapons (bec de corbin, ahlspiess, warhammers, bodkin arrows) are the best anti-armor weapons, so they maintain the (1) armor divisor. For their relatively high velocity compared with other low-tech ranged weapons, most single-shot firearms also get (1) armor divisor.
- Impaling weapons are more effective against non-metallic armor: most of them have armor divisor (0.66) against metallic armor, but they maintain the (1) armor divisor against non-metallic armor.
- Unbalanced cutting weapons (swords, khopesh and eplison axes excluded), unbalanced wood or balanced metal crushing weapons and piercing weapons made of soft metal (ex. lead sling bullets) perform a bit worse against armor. They get (0.66).
- Unbalanced swords, like dao and falchion, are more effective than ordinary swords against non metallic armor, but they aren't good as axes against metallic armor. Same thing for impaling weapons with multiple striking points, like the trident. They get (0.5) against metallic armor, but (0.66) against non-metallic armor.
- Broadheaded impaling weapons such leaft-shaped and hunting arrows seems to be more effective against cloth or leather armor, but they're less effective against metallic armor. They get (0.5) against metallic armor, but (1.5) against non-metallic armor.
- Balanced cutting weapons, the flat of blades, balanced wooden crushing weapons, unarmed attacks and stone piercing weapons aren't ideal against any kind of armor. They get (0.5).
- Metal weapons of fine/very fine quality and/or made of hardened steel improve their armor divisor against non-metallic armor (cutting attacks), or both metallic and non-metallic weapons (impaling and piercing attacks), but not against hardened steel armor.
- Low-tech materials (bone, obsidian, stone, fire-hardened or unhardened wood) generally perform significantly worse against armor, especially for cutting and impaling weapons.

Here is the table.

° = non-metallic armor
˟ = metallic armor
˟˟ = hardened steel armor

(1˟˟)/(1.5˟)/(1.5°)
- pi (hardened steel weapons and ammo)

(1)
- cr (unbalanced metal/stone weapons)
- pi (single-shot firearms | weapons and ammo made of hard metal: bronze, iron, steel...)

(0.66˟˟)/(1˟)/(1.5°)
- imp (hardened steel weapons)

(0.66˟)/(1°)
- cut (fine/very fine quality unbalanced metal weapons)
- imp (metal weapons)

(0.66)
- cr (balanced metal/stone weapons | unbalanced bone/wood weapons)
- cut (unbalanced metal weapons, swords excluded)
- pi (weapons and ammo made of soft metal: copper, lead, silver...)

(0.5˟˟)/(0.66˟)/(2°)
- imp (broadhead hardened steel weapons and ammo)

(0.5˟˟)/(0.66˟)/(1°)
- imp (hardened steel weapons with multiple heads)

(0.5˟)/(1.5°)
- imp (broadhead metal weapons and ammo)

(0.5˟)/(1°)
- cut (fine/very fine quality unbalanced metal swords)

(0.5˟)/(0.66°)
- cut (unbalanced metal swords | fine/very fine quality balanced metal weapons)
- imp (metal weapons with multiple heads | fire-hardened wood/stone weapons)

(0.5)
- cr (balanced bone/wood weapons | flat of blades | unarmed attacks)
- cut (balanced metal weapons | unbalanced bone/obsidian/stone weapons)
- pi (ceramic/stone weapons and ammo)

(0.33˟)/(1°)
- imp (broadhead stone weapons and ammo)

(0.33˟)/(0.5°)
- imp (fire-hardened wood/stone weapons with multiple heads | bone/obsidian/unhardened wood weapons)

(0.33)
- cut (balanced bone/obsidian/stone weapons)

(0.25˟)/(0.66°)
- imp (broadhead bone/obsidian weapons and ammo)

(0.25˟)/(0.33°)
- imp (bone/obsidian/unhardened wood weapons with multiple heads)

SOME EXAMPLES

Thrusting Broadsword: sw+1 (0.5) cut || thr+2 (0.66˟)/(1°) imp
Thrusting Broadsword, fine quality: sw+2 (0.5˟)/(0.66°) cut || thr+3 (0.66˟)/(1°) imp
Small Axe: sw+1 (0.66) cut
Small Axe, fine quality: sw+2 (0.66˟)/(1°) cut
Small Mace: sw+2 (1) cr
Longbow, war arrow: 1d+1 (0.66˟)/(1°) imp
Longbow, broadhead arrow: 1d+1 (0.5˟)/(1.5°) imp
Longbow, bodkin arrow: 1d+1 (1) pi+
Longbow, hardened steel bodkin arrow: 1d+1 (1˟˟)/(1.5˟)/(1.5°) pi+
Large Falchion: sw+2 (0.5˟)/(0.66°) cut || thr+1 (0.66˟)/(1°) imp
Spear: thr+2 (0.66˟)/(1°) imp || thr+3 (0.66˟)/(1°) imp
Spear, stone: thr+2 (0.5˟)/(0.66°) imp || thr+3 (0.5˟)/(0.66°) imp
Sling, lead bullets: sw (0.66) pi
Sling, stone bullets: sw (0.5) pi

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

Any solution where step 1 is "reject the solution to the problem" is going to fail.

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

I know that's far away from being appealing for the average GURPS player, but if you're a math-masochist then it could work well. Like this http://www.sjgames.com/pyramid/sample.html?id=2794.

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

No, really, it can't. There is no solution to the strength damage chart being nonsensical other than changing the strength damage chart.

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

Sounds good for a highly detailed, strictly gladiatorial game, something like this week it's "Ninja vs. Pirate". Well, that was great folks, next week it's "Aztec vs. Viking!".

However it sounds unbelievably tedious for most campaigns.

That said, I kind of like the idea of a weekly versus game now, so YMMV.

Easier way -- suggestion
 

Just double the DR of any metal armor against muscle-powered attacks --

includes all hand weapons &
bows, crossbows, etc.

You could argue for including bone or wood armor in this mix.

Of course, this will make combats longer . . . much longer.

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

Far easier solution: subtract 2 from the min ST of every weapon (so that they can actually be wielded by those who historically wielded them), subtract 20-30 CP from the amount you give PC's (so that they can not afford to take high ST just for giggles). Problem solved.

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

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. DR 12 Medium Plate will made the wearer invulnerable even to heavy maces or pollaxes.

It doesn't work either. A ST 10 man with a broadsword is still capable to inflict one damage against Medium Plate. And this isn't realistic, even in form of blunt trauma damage.

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

You are somehow implying that a ST 10 creature with a broadsword should deal no damage against someone wearing medium plate.

If so, what is the Basis for this assertion?

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

Physics.

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

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

The simplest fix is to give cutting damage a (.5) AD. Problem solved.

You can go with your more complicated table, but if you don't want to change the ST table (and I get why you don't), I think that single change is the easiest.

But really, if you do this, even if "realistic," it's not going to lead to fun gameplay if you can't hurt anyone in armor. OR it will require immense skill to target chinks or armpits or what have you.

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

This system is strictly simulationist and it isn't adequate for fantasy settings or gameplay. It's suited for historical campaigns with a strictly realistic game approach.

Swords aren't anti-armor weapons at all (and they aren't the main weapon for the vast majority of historical warriors during the ages). For a swordsman, the best tactic against an armored opponent is targeting the unprotected areas of his body (anyway in most eras and cultures, full-armored warriors were a minority in the armies). Against a full-armored opponent in a battle situation, the best thing the swordsman could do is sheathe the sword and draw a mace, a warhammer or another weapon suited for fighting armored opponents.

Battleaxes generally don't perform very well against armor, especially for thick metallic armor. Against metallic armor, they're generally better than swords and worse than maces.

Most spears and pikes could pierce through mail only with very strong thrusts and if the mail isn't well-padded and/or it isn't of the sturdiest type.

War bows and crossbows were effective against mail armor at close range, but not against plate armor.

My HRs have the purpose of reproducing this in game.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

Also, see this video at the 36 second mark. If this armor is an accurate model of 15th century armor, then the breastplate should be roughly DR7 according to Loadouts: LT. Notice the guy in armor does not even flinch when the longsword hits him in the chest from what is probably an CA (S) or AoA (S). DR6 plate really should be proof against a broadsword.

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

So you think men with spears should usually pierce armor?

A ST 10 man with a spear held in both hands does 1d+1 damage, or 1d+3 damage on an AoA Strong. The former usually penetrates regular mail. The latter always does.

Why do you imagine armor to be so useless against spears? If the armor was so bad that most attacks penetrated it, then why didn't the men who wore it choose thicker armor?

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

1. Because people died to spears.
2. Because you need a way to hurt opponents in a game.
3. Because against most opponents in most situations against most armor, the game works fine, particularly with a (.5) AD for cutting weapons.
4. Because the quality of armor was highly variable and the force imparted from a sharp point will overcome quite a bit (stab a kitchen knife through a tin can).

But most important for me is point 2. I just don't see how the game plays out if armor is 100% realistic. Unless nobody has armor (which would also be realistic in most eras), but if you do that, what's the point?

The video included in this thread is interesting, but doesn't the (.5) AD largely help with that? ST 11 man has Sw 1d+1, even assuming those are greatswords (which they don't appear to be), that's 1d+4 cut. If that is DR 7 plate, then against the sword attack it's DR 14. 1d+4 isn't getting through DR 14.

Problem solved, no?

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

I agree AD is the way to go. Or adjusting and splitting DR by damage type which if I really felt inclined would be how I'd do it, but it's functionally the same thing in terms of end result.

Personally my quick fix would be give hand held weapons AD(0.5) and apply edge protection on top of that.


It depends if you think the ST damage table is inherent nonsensical at the initial basic Sw / Thr damage point, of just has problems when it runs up against DR.

I agree with the later at some points of the scale, but not sure the former is shown.

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

They did, but not necessarily because spears reliably went through the full thickness of their armour (i.e unarmoured location's, or thinner areas of armour)

Well that's a game concern rather than relevant to how spears interacted with armour in RL. But even then the system allows you way to deal with armoured opponents. However I take your point, it's just we're now on a different (albeit related) subject.

I agree with that to an extent.

Well poor quality armour is represented by lower than the norm DR for that type of armour, and tin cans are not armour.

Ok well IME such games are work out like this. Armour is a huge advantage, and the most effective ways of dealing with it are fighting in some combination of:

Hitting where it's not (full coverage armour was quite rare historically)
Hitting were it was weak
Fighting in a way that doesn't involve penetrating armour with force

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

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.

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

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
 

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

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
 

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
 

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
 

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
 

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.

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).

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.
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.

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
 

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
 

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?

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

These tests are good at telling us how much energy is required to compromise the armour but not so good at telling us how much damage the wearer takes. The main problem is that they are never placed on a target that is as mobile, flexible, and resilient as a human being. We seriously underestimate how much more effective armour is when it is worn by a human.

The point of armour is to get destroyed. Every joule that goes into deforming the armour is a joule that isn't going into the wearer. Anyone who comes out of a battle with their armour undamaged is going to get accused of not pulling their weight, if not of outright cowardice.

The most common threat on any battlefield for the best part of three thousand years was from spears and arrows. All body armour for all of this time was designed to stop these weapons. We know from the primary sources that some types of mail were considered completely arrowproof. What we don't know is which types. It seems reasonable to assume that they were the variants made from a combination of heavy links and denser weaves.

This might help.
http://myarmoury.com/feature_mail.html

There are dozens of different types of mail. Low-Tech took all of these and created three generic categories, but more realistic modelling isn't possible so long as we rely on the current ST-damage table.

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

Nothing wrong with your armor only suffering temporary deformation rather than permanent deformation.

Except that making it sturdy enough for that means more material with the attendant drawbacks.

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

Bah. Temporary deformation is for wimps. A real warrior will get his armour completely destroyed and still continue to fight.

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

“I don't want a knight in shining armor.
I don't want a knight in scuffed armor.
I want his helmet to have dents. I want my knight to be real, and dark and savage. I want my knight to be a survivor. Someone who's been tested and got through his trails. Not some ***** in gleaming metal.”

Noted medieval historian Belle Aurora ;-)

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

I read your article on MyArmoury some time ago and I noticed that - very rarely - the mail could fail (because poor maintenance or because a strong hit on a weak point, maybe either one or more bent/bad manufactured/rusty rings and rivets). This could be represented in game with a critical hit.

Regarding the results of the test of Williams, 140/150 J (longbow arrow at point-blank) - 100 J (light mail and padding) = 40-50 J from an impaling weapon which press into the flesh, a force comparable to an underarm stab with a knife; it could be either lethal or, more probably, non-lethal, depending where the arrow hits. Heavier mail with padding is likely to reduce the damage to some blunt trauma or it could even be completely proofed.