The Point Always Beats the Edge Revisited and MA-compatible
 

A few months ago, I posted a thread with various house-rules for a combat heavy Low-Tech campaign. With the arrival of Martial Arts, these rules are outdated and often obsolete. Nevertheless, some concerns were not addressed there and await the release of CCoI. Until that happy day, I present my MA-compatible house rules, starting with a simplified system for modifying armour protection versus differing attack types.

I divide each class of hand weapon damage into sub-categories and armour may have specific strength or weaknesses against each of these categories. Just find the weapon used and check the armour table to see if any notes apply.

Weapon Categories

Crushing weapons

Crushing (cr) ___Normal rules in all respects.

Backsword (hilt punch); Baton; Blackjack or Sap; Blunt Arrows; Blunt Teeth; Bokken; Bola Perdida; Bolas; Boomerang; Brass Knucles; Cestus; Chain Whip; Combat Fan; Discus; Dusack; Eku; Gada (round); Hook Sword; Jo; Jutte; Kick; Kick w/boots; Knobbed Club; Kusari; Kusarigama; Kusarijutte; Life Preserver; Light Club; Long Staff; Maul (square); Mensurschläger (hilt punch); Morningstar (round or spiked); Myrmex; Nunchaku; Quarterstaff; Punch; Rope Dart; Round Mace; Sai; Sap Glove; Shield Bash; Shield Bash w/spike; Short Baton; Short Staff; Small Round Mace; Soderagami; Tetsubo (round); Three-Part Staff; Throwing Stick; Tonfa; Urumi; Weighted Scarf; Whip.

In addition, any normally cut or imp weapon converted to crushing usually becomes cr, such as swords without sharp tips for stabbing. The same applies to hammer heads added to weapons if they are round or square.

Focused crushing (cr+) ___Enhanced armour penetration
Gada (flanged); Mace; Maul (beveled or flanged); Morningstar (flanged); Small Mace; Tetsubo (beveled or flanged).

In addition, any hammer head added to a weapon such as a polearm or axe/mace of some sort that is beveled or otherwise made to focus the force of the blow counts as cr+.

Cutting weapons

Slicing/Draw Cut (cut-) ___Inferior effects against armour
Balisong; Bill (hook); Bladed Hand; Bowel Raker Arrow; Cavalry Saber; Combat Fan; Deer Antlers; Duelling Bill (hook); Edged Rapier; Frog Crotch Arrow; Hook Sword (hilt punch or hook); Jian; Katana; Katar; Knife-Wheel; Large Katar; Large Knife; Late Katana; Light Edged Rapier; Long Knife; Main-Gauche; Qian Kun Ri Yue Dao (hilt punch); Sabre; Sharp Teeth (man-sized or smaller); Shortsword* (lighter); Shuriken; Sickle (hook); Slashing Wheel; Small Knife; Soderagami (hook); Straight Razor; Urumi; Willow Leaf.

In addition, Tip Slashes are always cut- attacks, except in the case of the Heavy Spear.

Cutting/Slashing (cut) ___Somewhat inferior against armour
Backsword; Bastard Sword; Broadsword; Cutlass; Dao; Falchion; Greatsword; Heavy Spear (tip slash); Hungamunga; Kukri; Kusarigama; Large Falchion; Large Hungamunga; Longsword; Mensurschläger; Naginata; Qian Kun Ri Yue Dao; Shortsword* (heavier); Sickle; Small Falchion; Thrusting Bastard Sword; Thrusting Broadsword; Thrusting Greatsword; Sharp Teeth (larger than man-sized).

Cutting (cut+) ___Standard cutting rules
Axe; Bill; Duelling Bill; Duelling Glaive; Duelling Halberd; Duelling Pollaxe; Greataxe; Glaive; Halberd; Hatchet; Heavy Horse-Cutter; Lajatang; Light Horse-Cutter; Monk's Spade; Poleaxe; Small Axe; Small Throwing Axe; Throwing Axe.

Impaling weapons

Weak Impaling (imp-) ___Armour Divisor (0.5)
Trident; Wooden Stake; Wood or Stone weapons.

Edged Impaling (imp) ___Normal imaling rules, slightly improved performance against some armour
Arrow; Backsword; Balisong; Bill; Bladed Hand; Cavalry Saber; Crossbow Bolt; Cutlass; Dagger; Dao; Dart; Dress Smallsword; Duelling Bill; Duelling Glaive; Duelling Halberd (thrust); Edged Rapier; Falchion; Fangs; Glaive; Halberd (thrust); Harpoon; Heavy Horse-Cutter; Heavy Spear; Javelin; Jian; Katana; Katar; Knife Wheel; Kukri; Lance; Large Falchion; Large Katar; Large Knife; Large Throwing Knife; Late Katana; Light Horse-Cutter; Light Edged Rapier; Light Rapier; Long Knife; Long Spear; Longsword; Main-Gauche; Naginata; Plumbata; Qian Kun Ri Yue Dao; Rapier; Rope Dart; Saber; Scythe; Short Spear; Shortsword; Sickle; Small Falchion; Small Knife; Smallsword; Small Throwing Knife; Spear; Thrusting Bastard Sword; Thrusting Broadsword; Thrusting Greatsword.

Narrow Impaling (imp+) ___Enhanced performance against armour, but only pi+ performance against flesh
Bodkin Arrow**; Duelling Halberd (swung); Estoc; Halberd (swung); Pick; Rondel Dagger; Sai; Stiletto; Warhammer.

At the GM's option, a cinematic campaign may include weapons of the above types which are so narrow-bladed as to have an Armour Divisor of 2 instead of using the rules for armour versus weapon type and behaves as a pi weapon against flesh.


Armour Table

Torso

Type

Notes

Thick Clothing*** Fur Loincloth Fur Tunic Bronze Breastplate Bronze Corselet Cloth Armour Leather Armour Leather Jacket Light Scale Armour Lorica Segmentata Mail Hauberk Mail Shirt Scale Armour Double Mail Hauberk Heavy Steel Corselet Steel Breastplate Steel Corselet Steel Laminate Plate Buff Coat
Limb Armour

Type

Notes

Bronze Armbands Bronze Greaves Cloth Sleeves Heavy Leather Leggings Heavy Leather Sleeves Leather Leggings Leather Sleeves Leather Pants Studded Leather Skirt Mail Leggings Mail Sleeves Scale Leggings Scale Sleeves Heavy Plate Arms Heavy Plate Legs Plate Arms Plate Legs
Headgear

Type

Notes

Bronze Helmet Bronze Pot-Helm Cloth Cap Leather Cap Leather Helm Legionary Helmet Mail Coif Barrel Helm Face Mask Greathelm Pot-Helm
Gloves

Type

Notes

Cloth GlovesLeather Gloves Gauntlets Heavy Gauntlets
Footwear

Type

Notes

Sandals

Shoes Boots Sollerets
Notes
[5] -1 to DR versus cr+
[6] +1 DR versus cut-
[7] +2 DR versus cut-
[8] +3 to DR versus cut-
[9] +1 to DR versus cut
[10] +2 to DR versus cut
[11] -1 to DR versus imp
[12] -1 to DR versus imp+
[13] -2 to DR versus imp+

Comments?

*Most shortswords are cut-, while unusually long or heavy versions, such as the Katzbalger and sica are considered cut weapons.
**Historical bodkin arrows are best simulated by a -2 (or -1/die) to basic damage, an Armour Divisor (2) and pi+ damage.
***DR 0, but enjoys a bonus against cut-

Re: The Point Always Beats the Edge Revisited and MA-compatible
 

I would allow fighters to change the damage type of cut-, cut, and cut+ weapons between those types at some penalty. Probably substract damage to move from cut- to cut and from cut to cut+. Anyone can attempt to chop with a slicing weapon, etc, but chances are it'll have less weight behind it.

[Edit: depending on the exact numbers, this might not make any difference with the armors you've given. But it might come up when either the armors or the weapons are scaled up, or if some of the new damage types have different damage multipliers when past armor.]

If there were some benefit to doing cut- instead of cut (etc.), which I don't think you're currently modelling, then I'd allow a fighter to move from cut+ to cut to cut- with a skill penalty. I.e. anyone can attempt to slice with a chopping weapon, but the difficulty increases.

Re: The Point Always Beats the Edge Revisited and MA-compatible
 

Those fixed values don't scale well.

Re: The Point Always Beats the Edge Revisited and MA-compatible
 

I'd call it a Technique at -2, only allowing for an upgrade of one level. Probably lower damage by 1 as well, making it not worthwhile except for draw-cutting weapons like the katana.

Hmm... technically, that could be a justification for a cut which does a +1 damage to unarmoured people. As a Technique, it would be a -2 as above.

Re: The Point Always Beats the Edge Revisited and MA-compatible
 

Armour DR is a fixed value as well.

Now, basically, it has a fixed value against different types of attacks.

Re: The Point Always Beats the Edge Revisited and MA-compatible
 

I would be interested in knowing how Icelander would integrate these ideas with TBone's Edge Protection. I assume your houserules are built so no additional EP is necessary. Everything just gets sorted out with the DR.

Re: The Point Always Beats the Edge Revisited and MA-compatible
 

Yeah, this sort of replaces Edge Protection. Not that I oppose EP, it's a fine idea and does a better job than these rules at dealing with Blunt Trauma.

What this is meant to do is be a pure optional add on to basic GURPS rules, not a new mechanic which alters BASIC SET stats. This is done in the vain hope that Kromm decides to improve upon it and insert something like it into the hypothetical GURPS Cabaret Chicks on Ice.

As for intergrating this with Edge Protection, I suppose it could be done. Keep the same groupings of melee weapons and tweak the armour types in their effect a bit.

Re: The Point Always Beats the Edge Revisited and MA-compatible
 

For simplicity, it's good to be able to look up the effect a given attack has on a given armour quickly. The following table aids me in game-play, at least until I've memorised the rules completely.

-1 DR vs. cr+
Bronze Breastplate; Bronze Corselet; Light Scale Armour; Lorica Segmentata; Scale Armour; Heavy Steel Corselet; Steel Breastplate; Steel Corselet; Steel Laminate Plate; Bronze Armbands; Bronze Greaves; Scale Leggings; Scale Sleeves; Heavy Plate Arms; Heavy Plate Legs; Plate Arms; Plate Legs; Bronze Helmet; Bronze Pot-Helm; Legionary Helmet; Barrel Helm; Face Mask; Greathelm; Pot-Helm; Gauntlets; Heavy Gauntlets; Sollerets.

-1 DR vs. imp
Light Scale Armour; Lorica Segmentata; Scale Armour; Studded Leather Skirt; Scale Leggings; Scale Sleeves.

-1 DR vs. imp+
Bronze Breastplate; Bronze Corselet; Light Scale Armour; Mail Hauberk; Mail Shirt; Double Mail Hauberk; Bronze Armbands; Bronze Greaves; Mail Leggings; Mail Sleeves; Bronze Helmet; Bronze Pot-Helm.

-2 DR vs. imp+
Lorica Segmentata; Scale Armour; Heavy Steel Corselet; Steel Breastplate; Steel Corselet; Steel Laminate Plate; Studded Leather Skirt; Scale Leggings; Scale Sleeves; Heavy Plate Arms; Heavy Plate Legs; Plate Arms; Plate Legs; Legionary Helmet; Mail Coif; Barrel Helm; Face Mask; Greathelm; Pot-Helm; Gauntlets; Heavy Gauntlets; Sollerets.

+1 DR vs. cut-
Thick Clothing; Fur Loincloth; Fur Tunic; Cloth Armour; Leather Jacket; Lorica Segmentata; Buff Coat; Bronze Armbands; Bronze Greaves; Cloth Sleeves; Leather Leggings; Leather Sleeves; Leather Pants; Bronze Helmet; Bronze Pot-Helm; Cloth Cap; Leather Cap; Cloth Gloves; Shoes.

+2 DR vs. cut-
Bronze Breastplate; Bronze Corselet; Leather Armour; Light Scale Armour; Mail Hauberk; Mail Shirt; Scale Armour; Heavy Leather Leggings; Heavy Leather Sleeves; Mail Leggings; Mail Sleeves; Scale Leggings; Scale Sleeves; Leather Helm; Mail Coif; Leather Gloves; Boots.

+3 DR vs. cut-
Double Mail Hauberk; Heavy Steel Corselet; Steel Breastplate; Steel Corselet; Steel Laminate Plate; Heavy Plate Arms; Heavy Plate Legs; Plate Arms; Plate Legs; Legionary Helmet; Barrel Helm; Face Mask; Greathelm; Pot-Helm; Gauntlets; Heavy Gauntlets; Sollerets.

+1 DR vs. cut
Bronze Breastplate; Bronze Corselet; Cloth Armour; Leather Armour; Leather Jacket; Light Scale Armour; Mail Hauberk; Mail Shirt; Scale Armour; Buff Coat; Cloth Sleeves; Heavy Leather Leggings; Heavy Leather Sleeves; Leather Leggings; Leather Sleeves; Leather Pants; Mail Leggings; Mail Sleeves; Scale Leggings; Scale Sleeves; Cloth Cap; Leather Cap; Leather Helm; Mail Coif; Cloth Gloves; Leather Gloves; Shoes; Boots.

+2 DR vs. cut
Double Mail Hauberk; Heavy Steel Corselet; Steel Breastplate; Steel Corselet; Steel Laminate Plate; Heavy Plate Arms; Heavy Plate Legs; Plate Arms; Plate Legs; Legionary Helmet; Barrel Helm; Face Mask; Greathelm; Pot-Helm; Gauntlets; Heavy Gauntlets; Sollerets.

Re: The Point Always Beats the Edge Revisited and MA-compatible
 

For natural armour, I've found that these rules of thumb do fine for cases where the GM hasn't otherwise noted the armour of the creature to be different from normal DR in some way:

Flexible Natural DR (including Tough Skin)
DR 1 DR 2 DR 3
For every full 3 points of flexible DR over 3, add a +1 to DR against cut- and subtract a -1 DR against imp+. In addition to that, for every 6 full points of flexible DR over 3, add a +1 to DR against cut and subtract a -1 from DR against imp and cr+.

Rigid Natural DR
DR 1 DR 2 DR 3
For every 3 full points of natural DR over 3, add a +1 DR against cut- and subtract a -1 DR against imp+. In addition to that, for every 6 full points of natural DR over 3, add a +1 DR against cut and subtract -1 DR against cr+.

Re: The Point Always Beats the Edge Revisited and MA-compatible
 

If I were going to use it, I would have to make a table with my character's armour listed down one side and the damage types across the top. Then the cells would have +1, +2 or whatever in the cells.

Re: The Point Always Beats the Edge Revisited and MA-compatible
 

Such a table should be relatively easy to make.

Unfortunately, I have no idea how to get vBulletin to show a simple Word or Excel table.

If it's just for a single character, there is usually space for a few notes for his armour, such as:

Mail Shirt DR 4/2 --- Weight 25 --- Covers areas 9-10 and 17-18.
-1 DR imp+, +2 DR cut-, +1 DR cut.

Re: The Point Always Beats the Edge Revisited and MA-compatible
 

Exactly. We work with what we've got here on the board.

Re: The Point Always Beats the Edge Revisited and MA-compatible
 

If I ever decided to submit such a proposal as a Pyramid article, however, then there would be room for an improved format, such as a handy reference table.

Re: The Point Always Beats the Edge Revisited and MA-compatible
 

As Luther remarked upthread, scaling is a problem for when that happy day when we finally have rules about thicker and thinner armour. As it happens, the simplified values are approximated from a previous scaleable rule, so if I wanted to scale the armour, here's how I would do it.

A note first, any scaling of DR would maintain a split armour DR like the mail 4/2 in the same proportions, aside from these rules.

Soft flexible: Most flexible armour like fur, cloth, leather and the buff coat.
At DR 3, add +1 DR vs. cut-. For every full 3 points of DR after that, add a +1 to DR against cut- and subtract a -1 DR against imp+. In addition to that, for every 6 full points of DR over 3, add a +1 to DR against cut and subtract a -1 from DR against imp and cr+.

Soft rigid: Leather, light scale and studded leather.
For every 3 full points of DR after DR 3, add a +1 DR against cut- and subtract a -1 DR against imp+. In addition to that, for every 6 full points of natural DR over 3, add a +1 DR against cut and subtract -1 DR against cr+.

Metal flexible: Mail and double mail.
At DR 6, mail (but not double mail, which already has this bonus) receives a +1 DR against cut- and +1 DR against cut. At DR 9, both types receive a +1 DR against cut- and cut; as well as -1 DR against imp+. For every full 3 points of DR after that, add a +1 DR against cut-. For every full 6 points after that, add a +1 DR against cut and a -1 DR against imp+.

Metal rigid: Lorica segmentata, scale and plate.
At DR 9 add a +1 DR against cut- and cut and subtract a -1 DR against imp+ and cr+. For every 3 full points DR over 9, add a +1 DR against cut- and subtract a -1 DR against imp+. In addition to that, for every 6 full points of DR over 9, add a +1 DR against cut and subtract -1 DR against cr+.

Re: The Point Always Beats the Edge Revisited and MA-compatible
 

FWIW get rid of "studded leather". It never existed historically as an armour typology.

Re: The Point Always Beats the Edge Revisited and MA-compatible
 

Even if it never existed in historical settings, that doesn't mean that it can't exist in fictional universes that aren't tied to Earth except through the existance of humans.

IIRC, the only "studded leather" piece of armor in the Basic Set is a skirt, presumably designed to supplement scale, mail, and plate armor as "groin and leg" padding.

Re: The Point Always Beats the Edge Revisited and MA-compatible
 

How can anyone assert that? How do you prove the absence of something?

To me at least, 'studded leather' represents any and all leather armour that is supported in some way with metal.

Re: The Point Always Beats the Edge Revisited and MA-compatible
 

Precisely.

Even if no historical army ever fielded troops wearing studded leather, orcs in fantasy worlds wear armour that's leather with some metal rivets. We need stats for such armour.

Correct, although you could use the Light Scale stats for a fantasy world 'studded leather'.

Re: The Point Always Beats the Edge Revisited and MA-compatible
 

Now Icelander, I am really quite surprised at you. Studded leather? Studded leather finds itself in much the same position as the Brontosaurus, in a certain regard. They are similar in that those interpretations of the facts that lead to belief in the existence of studded leather have now been shown to be in error. Much in the same way the interpretation of the facts that lead to a belief in a Brontosaurus were in error. If one asserts (correctly) that there were no Brontosauruses it would hardly be defensible for one to exclaim, "How can anyone assert that? How do you prove the absence of something?"

Ah ha - no we get to it. You just have a very strange definition of "studded leather". If your studded leather means "any and all leather armor that is supported in some way with metal" then I would just change the name to "reinforced leather" and call it a day.

Here is a picture of some fantasy armor made of leather than clearly has "some metal rivets". I would still call this "leather armor" though. If those rivets increase the defensive value of the armor at all, it is far below the granularity of the GURPS system. Some people would call that "studded leather".

The existence of "studded leather" is another one of those myths perpetuated by Dungeons and Dragons. They write about it:

That is the nonexistent purely fantasy "studded leather." Maybe Orcs wear it in fantasy games, or whatever. AD&D notes his is a great armor for pirates to wear. *shrug*

I have been looking online for one pictures I have in a book in hand, but cannot find it. But this picture looks well enough like it to illustrate the point. Is this the type of thing you are calling "studded leather" Icelander. It is leather armor that is supported by metal, but it is not the studs (or rivets) that increase its defensive capability. It is the metal plates on the other side. I would think you would want to differentiate between something like this and the traditional fantasy studded leather AD&D describes.

Re: The Point Always Beats the Edge Revisited and MA-compatible
 

I was just curious how anyone had gone about proving that studded leather was never used. I'm not really asserting that it was, you see, but I can't see how anyone would be able to be certain.

I used 'studded leather' because that's the name given in BASIC. I'm fine with reinforced leather and indeed, use that name most often when I mention it.

It depends. I'd have to see how big the rivets are on the inside. It could be DR 1, 2 or 3; all depending on how tough the leather is and how big the rivets are on the inside.

I'd give that DR 3, sure, and call it reinforced leather. GURPS doesn't have stats for it yet, but I use something similar to Light Scale.

Re: The Point Always Beats the Edge Revisited and MA-compatible
 

I'll defer to Dan the Great on that one.

Well, this is neither here nor there, you can see the inside of the rivets on the inside back of the armor. It is clearly put together with very modern snap rivets (sometimes called pop rivets). I'd go with no additional protection of any kind for having those extra rivets on it.

A tragedy to be sure. All hail the sometime-in-the-unknown-future release of Low Tech.

Re: The Point Always Beats the Edge Revisited and MA-compatible
 

I guess not, but if they're relatively tough, they might help against slashing attacks.

Cabaret Chicks on Ice, you mean? ;)

Yeah, it's eagerly awaited.

Re: The Point Always Beats the Edge Revisited and MA-compatible
 

Rivets ("studs") were used historically for three things: 1) as decoration; 2) to join pieces of cloth or leather together; or 3) to attach metal plates to a cloth or leather foundation. No. 3 is what has been misinterpreted as "studded armour" because only the rivet heads are visible. Examples include brigandines, coats of plates, corrazinas, etc. The studs only serve to hold the real protection in place and provide no DR themselves. If you add studs to leather you are likely to actually reduce the DR since attacks are less likely to glance off. Their only real use is for abrasion resistance which is why some biker jackets have them.

Re: The Point Always Beats the Edge Revisited and MA-compatible
 

And a leather coat with some pieces of metal attached is what I'd call 'studded leather' or 'reinforced leather'.

Which, incidentally, should probably have GURPS stats.

Re: The Point Always Beats the Edge Revisited and MA-compatible
 

But it is not what the so-called armour books call studded leather. The term is used to describe leather with metal studs and nothing else. If you have to use something then call it reinforced leather. Add +1 to the DR and be done with it.

Re: The Point Always Beats the Edge Revisited and MA-compatible
 

I don't care what it's called, but I fail to see why 'studded leather' is automatically a wrong way to describe a leather coat with metal attached by means of studs.

And I agree that adding a +1 to the DR is correct, but that leaves the questions of weight and cost. Currently, I have used the Light Scale values, but perhaps cost should be a little higher and the DR modifiers in my house-rules slightly different.

Re: The Point Always Beats the Edge Revisited and MA-compatible
 

We are trying to guide you away from ambiguous terminology.

Re: The Point Always Beats the Edge Revisited and MA-compatible
 

All the gods preserve us from ambigious terminology! ;)

Re: The Point Always Beats the Edge Revisited and MA-compatible
 

I sure that as a lawyer you are well acquainted with the problems often generated by ambiguous terminology. It is certainly drilled in these philosophy classes I'm in. :) I am sure all the more in law school.

Re: The Point Always Beats the Edge Revisited and MA-compatible
 

Indeed.

But unlike philosophy*, the study of law thrives on and welcomes ambigiouity. Unecessary precision is just as unwise as unecessary ambigiouity.

The Basic Set makes no reference to 'reinforced leather'. It does mention 'studded leather'. Therefore, any fair attempt to add to the rules there, and not redo them alltogether, may mention 'studded leather'.

If I were choosing the name, that's one thing, but I'm simply using a term from the rulebook.

*Or perhaps, according to Douglas Adams, just like philosophy. ;)

Re: The Point Always Beats the Edge Revisited and MA-compatible
 

I am not sure what historical analog (if any) the Basic Set was using for "Studded Leather Skirt". Being that it is listed as flexible I bet the authors had in mind something more similar to the AD&D fantasy armor description. I think it is ambiguous. So it is an open judgment call on what someone interprets that to be.

Opposites tend to be studied in the same discipline anyway. :)

Re: The Point Always Beats the Edge Revisited and MA-compatible
 

What about the "feathers" worn by greek hoplites, for example? Some of those certianly look to be leather or cloth with decroate metal panels. That's what I usually think of. But I don't think of studded leather much anymore.

I always thought split DRs for armours is great. I don't know if I care for the finer weapons distinctions, but that's may just be my desire for convience over finer resolution. I don't work too hard to make an axe a more potent weapon, because I already find them to be particularly potent. A fine Axe does Sw+3 cut, and I think that fairly allows the axe do more damage than a broadsword of the same cost.

This revision of yours, Icelander, leaves a much better taste in my mouth than the last one, with the various armour divisors. Technically, I know they're there.

Re: The Point Always Beats the Edge Revisited and MA-compatible
 

I certainly understand that and this is an entirely optional distinction for those who like finer resolution, compareable to MA's A Matter Of Inches.

Still, even with the split armour DRs, axes are not noticable better than swords. Instead, each weapon has a tactical role for which it is suited and no one weapon is better than others at everything.

That was the point (pun intended). ;)

This is much closer to something that could almost be put in a sidebar in the eagerly awaited CCoI.